PEEFACE. 


In  the  preparation  of  this  work  the  object  of  the  author  has 
been,  primarily,  to  determine  and  set  forth  the  construction  and 
operation  of  the  constitution  so  far  as  it  has  been  settled  by  the 
courts. 

With  this  object  in  view  the  decisions  have  been  carefully 
examined  and  the  rules  deduced  from  them  arranged  in  their 
logical  sequence,  and  apparently  conflicting  authorities  have 
been  harmonized.  There  has  been  an  avoidance  of  all  philo- 
sophical discussion  of  many  questions  which  invited  such  treat- 
ment ;  all  effort,  to  show  why  the  law  is  as  it  is  or  why  it  should 
not  be  as  it  is  has  been  omitted. 

The  already  familiar  method  of  treating  the  constitution 
clause  by  clause  has  been  followed  as  being  most  convenient  for 
the  practitioner.  Judicial  authority  has  been  cited  for  every 
statement  made,  thus  furnishing  a  wealth  of  decisions  upon 
all  points  which  have  ever  been  disputed.  It  is  believed  that 
the  method  followed  will  commend  itself  to  the  profession. 

While  the  federal  supreme  court  is  the  final  authoritv  in  all 
matters  of  constitutional  construction,  the  decisions  of  the  infe- 
rior federal  courts  and  of  the  state  courts  should  not  be  under- 
valued. The  state  reports  have  been  freely  resorted  to,  es- 
pecially for  decisions  in  support  of  rights  claimed  under  the  fed- 
eral constitution  and  for  illustrative  cases  construing  similar 
clauses  in  state  constitutions. 

In  a  work  of  this  scope  and  size  it  would  be  impracticable, 
even  undesirable,  to  include  all  the  decisions  pertinent  to  a  given 
point,  and  no  attempt  has  been  made  to  do  so.  Merely  cumula- 
tive authorities  of  no  especial  illustrative  importance  have  been 
omitted,  and  authorities  have  been  multiplied  only  in  instances 
where  the  cases  are  of  considerable  value.  References  will  be 
found,  however,  to  all  the  important  cases,  federal  and  state. 

WILLIAM  A.  SUTHERLAND. 

Fresno,  Cal.,  May,  19 OL 

(iii) 


740024 


TABLE   OF   CONTENTS. 


TEXT  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION". 

INTRODUCTORY. 

PREAMBLE. 

ARTICLE  I. 

Sec.  1. — Legislative  power  vested  in  Congress. 

Senate  and  House  of  Representatives. 
Sec.  2. — 1.  Representatives,  election   of. 
qualification  of  electors. 

2.  Qualifications  of  members. 

3.  Apportionment   of    Representatives. 

of  direct  taxes. 
Census  to  be  taken  decennially. 
Ratio  of  representation. 

4.  Vacancies  in  representation. 

Executive  to  order  election  to  fill. 

5.  House  to  choose  its  own  officers. 

to  have  sole  power  of  impeachment. 
Sec.  3. — 1.  Senate,  of  what  composed. 

Senators,  how  and  when  chosen. 
Senators,  each  to  have  one  vote. 

2.  Senators  to  be  divided  into  three  classes. 

first  class  to  vacate  in  two  years, 
second  class  in  four  years, 
third  class  at  end  of  sixth  year, 
one-third  to  be  chosen  every  second  year, 
vacancies  during  recess  to  be  temporarily  filled. 

3.  Qualifications  for  Senator. 

thirty  years  of  age. 
nine  years  a  citizen, 
to  be  inhabitant  of  State  for  which  chosen. 

4.  Vice-President  to  be  President   of  Senate. 

to  have  no  vote  except  in  case  of  a  tie. 

5.  Senate  to  choose  other  officers. 

to   choose  President   pro   tern,   in   absence    of    Vice- 
President. 

6.  Senate  to  have  sole  power  to  try  impeachments. 

when  so  sitting,  to  be  on  oath  or  affirmation. 
Chief  Justice  to  preside  on  trial  of  President, 
concurrence  of  two-thirds  necessary  for  conviction. 

7.  Judgment   on   conviction,   extent  of. 

not  to  operate  against  trial  according  to  law. 

(v) 


\  i  Table  of  Contents. 

Art.  I.— Continued. 

Sec.  -i — 1.  Time  and  mode  of  elections  to  be  fixed  by  State  legisla- 
tures. 
Congress  may  alter  State  regulations. 
ept  as  to  the  place  of  elections. 
2.  Congress  to  assemble  at  least  once  a  year. 

meeting  to  be  on  first  Monday  of  December. 
unl  vise  appointed  by  law. 

Sec.  5. — 1.  Each  hoi  se  to  judge  the  elections,  returns,  and  qualifica- 
tions of  its  members. 
majority  to  constitute  a  business  quorum. 

smaller  !  er  may  adjourn  and  compel  attendance. 

penalties   may  be  prescribed  for  nonattendance. 

2.  Each  house  may  determine  rules  of  its  proceedings. 

may  punish  for  disorderly  behavior. 

with  concurrence  of  two-thirds  may  expel. 

3.  Each  house  shall  keep  a  journal  of  proceedings. 

may  publish  the  same. 

yeas  and  nays  to  be  entered  on  desire  of  one-fifth. 

4.  Neither   house    Khali    adjourn    for    more    than    three    days 

without  consent  of  the  other. 
nor  to  any  other  place  than  that  in  which  they  are 
sitting. 
Sec.  6 — 1.  Compensation   for  services  to  be  fixed  by  law. 
to  be  paid  out  of  U.  S.  Treasury. 
Members  to  be  privileged  from  arrest  during  the  session, 
except  for  treason,  felony,  and  breach  of  peace, 
to  be  privileged  in  going  to  and  returning  from  the 

ions. 
for  speech  or  debate  not  to  be  questioned  elsewhere. 
2.  No  member  to  be  eligible  for  a  civil  office  under  Govern- 
ment   created    or    increased   in   emoluments    during 
his   term. 
no  person  holding  U.   S.    office   to   be   eligible   as  a 
member. 
Sec.  7. — 1.  Bills  for  raising  revenue   to   originate  in  the  House,  but 
the    Senate   may    propose    or    concur    with    amend- 
ments. 
2.  Every  bill   to  be  presented  to  the  President  for   his   ap- 
proval, 
if  returned,  objections  to  be  entered  on  the  journal, 
and  to  be  reconsidere  I. 
on  concurrence  of  two-thirds,  the  bill  to  be  sent  to 

other   house, 
if  approved  by  two-thirds,  to  become  a  law. 
the  vote  of  both  houses  to  be  by  yeas  and  nays, 
names  of  members  voting  to  be  entered   on  journals. 
if  bill  not  returned  by  President  in  ten  days,  to  be 


Table  of  Contents.  vii 

Art.  I,  Sec.  7. — Continued. 

a   law,   unless   Congress,   by   adjournment,   prevent 
the   return. 
3.  Concurrent   resolutions'  to   be  presented   to   the   President 
except  on  question  of  adjournment. 
if  disapproved,  require  two-thirds  to  pass  them. 
Sec.  8 — 1.  Congress   shall  have  power  to  lay  and  collect   taxes,   du- 
ties, imposts,  and  excises. 
to   pay   debts   and  provide  for  common   defense  and 

general  welfare. 
all  duties,  imposts,  and  excises'  to  be  uniform. 

2.  Congress  to  borrow  money  on  credit  of  U.  S. 

3.  Congress1  to  regulate  commerce  with  foreign  nations. 

among  the  several  States, 
and  with  the  Indian  tribes. 

4.  Congress  to  establish  uniform  rule  of  naturalization,  and 

uniform   laws   on   subject   of   bankruptcies. 

5.  Congress   to   coin   money   and   regulate  its   value,   and   fix 

the  standard  of  weights  and  measures. 

6.  Congress    to   provide   for    punishment     of     counterfeiting 

securities  and  coin  of  U.  S. 

7.  Congress  to  establish  postoffices  and  post-roads. 

8.  Congress  to  promote  progress   of  science  and  useful  arts' 

by   securing   to    authors    and    inventors    exclusive 
rights. 

9.  Congress    to     constitute    tribunals    inferior    to     Supreme 

Court. 

10.  Congress   to    define   and   punish   piracies   and   felonies    on 

high   seas,   and   offenses  against  law   of   nations. 

11.  Congress   to   declare  war,  grant    letters    of    marque    and 

reprisal,   and   make   rules   concerning   captures. 

12.  Congress  to   raise   and   support   armies. 

appropriations   to   be   limited   to   two   years. 

13.  Congress  to  provide  and  maintain  a  navy. 

14.  To  make  rules  for  government  of  land  and  naval  forces. 

15.  To  provide  for  calling  forth  the   militia. 

to    execute    laws,    suppress    insurrections,    etc. 

16.  To  provide'  for  organizing  and  arming  the  militia. 

and  for  governing  them  when  in  employ  of  Govern- 
ment. 

authority  of  States  as  to  appointment  of  officers 
reserved. 

also  as   to   disciplining  militia. 

17.  To    exercise    exclusive    legislation     over    seat    of    govern- 

ment, 
and  over  sites  of  public  works  or  buildings. 

18.  To  make  all  laws  necessary   and  proper  to  carry  out  its 

powers. 


viii  Table  of  Contents. 

Art.  I. — Con  !i a  in  tj. 

Sec.   9. — 1.  Migration   or  importation   of   slaves,   restriction   of. 
tax  or  duty  may  be  imposed. 

2.  Hah  as  carpus  not  to  be  suspended  except. 

3.  No  bill  of  attainder  or  ex  post  facto  law  to  be  passed. 

4.  No  direct  tax  unless"  in  proportion  to  census. 

5.  No  tax  or  duty  on  exports  from  any  State. 

6.  No   preference   to   be   given   in   commerce   or   revenue   to 

ports   of   any    State, 
no  entry,  clearance,  or  duties*  on  vessels  bound  to  or 
from   States. 

7.  Money  to  be  drawn  only  on  appropriations  made  by  law. 

statements   of  receipts   and   expenditures  to  be   pub- 
lished. 

8.  No  title  of  nobility  to  be  granted. 

no  officer  to  accept  presents'  from  foreign  powers. 
Sec.  10. — 1.  No  State  to  enter  into  any  treaty,  alliance,  or  confedera- 
tion. 
or  grant  letters   of  marque  and  reprisal, 
or   coin   money. 
or  emit  bills  of  credit. 

or  make  anything  but  gold  and  silver  a  legal  tender, 
or  pass  any  bill  of  attainder, 
or  ex  post  facto  law. 

or  law  impairing   obligation    of   contract, 
or  grant  any  title  of  nobility. 

2.  No  State,  without  consent  of  Congress,  shall  lay  any  im- 

posts   or   duties, 
except   absolutely  necessary. 

and  the  net  produce  to  be  for  use  of  Government, 
and  the  laws  subject  to  revision  of  Congress. 

3.  No  State,  without  consent    of    Congress,  to  lay  duty  oh 

tonnage. 
or  keep  troops  or  ships  of  war  in  time  of  peace, 
or  enter  into  any  agreement   or  compact  with  other 

States,  or  with   a  foreign   power, 
unless  actually  invaded  or  in  imminent  danger. 


ARTICLE  II. 

Sec.   1. — 1.  The   executive  power  ia   vested    in    a    President. 
his  term   of  office  shall  be  four  years. 
the   term   of   office   of  Vice-President    shall    be    the 

same 
they   shall   be    elected    together. 


Table  of  Contents.  ix 

Art.  II,  Sec.  1. — Continued. 

2.  Each  State  shall  appoint  Presidential  electors. 

to  be  in  number  equal  to  the  whole  number  of  their 

Senators  and  Eepresentatives. 
no  Senator  or  ^Representative  or  public  U.  S.  officer 

shall  be  an  elector. 

3.  Manner   of  voting  by  electors. 

Superseded  by  XITth   Amendment. 

4.  Congress  may   determine  time   of   choosing   electors. 

and  the  day  of  their  meeting  to  elect. 
to  be  the  same  throughout  the  U.  S. 

5.  Natural-born    citizens    alone    eligible    for    President. 

to  have  attained  the  age  of  thirty-five,  and  been 
fourteen   years   a   resident. 

6.  The  Vice-President  to  assume  the  duties  of  President  in 

case  of  his  death,  resignation,  etc. 
Congress  may  by  law  provide  for  the  case  of  death, 

resignation,   etc.,    of    the   President, 
and  declare  what  officer  shall  then  act. 

7.  The  compensation  of  the  President  shall  not  be  increased 

or   diminished   during   his   term   of   office, 
and   he   shall    not   receive     during    that    period   any 
other  emolument. 

8.  Oath  or  affirmation  of  President. 

Sec.  2. — 1.  President  shall  be  Commander-in-Chief  of  Army  and 
Navy. 

and  of  the  Militia  of  the  several  States,  when  in 
service  of  the  U.  S. 

may  require  written  opinions  of  executive  officers. 

may  grant  reprieves  and  pardons,  except  in  impeach- 
ments. 

2.  By  and  with   consent   of  Congress,  may   make  treaties. 

and   shall   nominate    and   appoint    Ambassadors,    etc. 
and   all   other   officers    whose   appointments    are    not 

otherwise   provided   for. 
Congress   may   vest   appointment   of   inferior   officers 

as  they  think  proper. 

3.  President   may   fill   vacancies   during   recess   of   Senate. 
Sec.  3. — President   to   give  information  of  state   of  the  Union. 

to   recommend   measures   to    Congress. 
on  extraordinary  occasions  may  convene  Congress, 
in  case  of  disagreement  may  adjourn  Congress, 
to   receive   Ambassadors   and   Ministers, 
to  take  care  that  the  laws  are  administered, 
to   commission   all   officers   of  the  U.   S. 
Sec.   4. — President   and   Vice-President   to  be  removed    on   impeach- 
ment for  treason,  bribery,  or  high  crimes. 


Table  of  Contents. 


ARTICLE  ni. 

Sec.  1. — Judicial  power  is  vested  in  a  Supreme  Court  and    inferior 
((nuts,  to  be  established  by  Congress. 

Judges  to  hold  office  during  good  behavior. 

compensation    not   to   be    diminished    during   continu- 
ance in  office. 
Sec.  2. — 1.  Jurisdiction  to  extend  to  all  cases  arising  under  the  Con- 
stitution, laws,  and  treaties. 

to    all   cases    affecting   Ambassadors,   Ministers,    and 
Consuls. 

to  all  cases   of  admiralty  and  maritime  jurisdiction. 

to  controversies  to  which  the  U.  S.  is  a  party. 

to  controversies  between  two  or  more  States'. 

between  a  State  and  citizens  of  another  State. 

between    citizens   of   different    States. 

between   citizens   of   the   same   State   claiming  lands 
under   grants   of   different   States. 

and    between    a   State,   or   its   citizens,   and    foreign 
States,   citizens,   or   Subjects. 

2.  Supreme   Court   shall   have   original   jurisdiction 

in   all    cases    affecting    Ambassadors,   Ministers,    or 

Consuls. 
and  cases  in  which  a  State  is  a  party, 
and   appellate  jurisdiction  both   as  to  law  and   fact, 

under   regulations   to   be    made   by   Congress. 

3.  Trials   of  all   crimes,  except  in  cases  of   impeachment,  to 

be  by  jury. 

to  be  had  in  State  where  crime  has  been  committed. 

when   not    committed    within     a   State,   to   be    where 
Congress   may  direct. 
Sec.   3. — 1.  Treason    consists   in  levying  war  against   or  adhering  to 
enemies  of  the  U.  S.,  giving  them  aid  and  comfort. 

no  conviction  unless  on  testimony  of  two  witnesses. 

or  on  confession  in  open   Court. 
2.  Congress  may   declare   the  punishment   for   treason. 

no  attainder  shall   work   corruption   of  blood   or  for- 
feiture beyond  the  life  of  the  party  attainted. 


ARTICLE!  IV. 

Sec.  1. — Full  faith  and  credit  to  be  given  to  public  acts,  records,  and 
judicial  proceedings   of   States. 
Congress  may  prescribe   the   manner   of   their  proof, 
and  the  effect  thereof. 


V 


Table  of  Contents.  xi 

Art.  IV. — Continued. 

Sec.  2. — 1.  Citizens  of  each  State  are  entitled  to  the  privileges  and 
immunities  of  citizens  in  the  several  States. 

2.  Fugitives  from  justice  to  be  delivered  up  to  State  hav- 

ing jurisdiction   of  the   crime. 

3.  Fugitives   from    service   or   labor   to   be   delivered   up. 
Sec.  3. — 1.  New  States  may  be  admitted  by  Congress,  but  they  can- 
not be  formed  within  the  jurisdiction  of  a  State 
without    consent    of    its    Legislature. 

nor  by  the  junction  of  two  or  more  States  without 
consent  of  States  concerned  and  of  Congress. 
2.  Congress  may  dispose  of  and  make  rules  and  regulations 
for  territories  or  other  property  belonging  to   the 
U.  S. 
Claims  of  the  IT.  S.  or  of  a  State  not  to  be  prejudiced. 
Sec.  4 — A  republican  form  of  government  guaranteed  to  each  State, 
and    protection    of    each    against    invasion, 
and  against  domestic  violence. 

ARTICLE   V. 

Congress  may  propose  amendments,  when  deemed  necessary. 

or  on  application  of  two-thirds  of  the  State  Legis- 
latures. 

convention  to  be  called. 

to  be  ratified  by  Legislatures  or  conventions  of 
three-fourths  of  the  States. 

no  State,  without  its  consent,  can  be  deprived  of  its 
equal  suffrage  in  the  Senate. 

ARTICLE   VI. 

1.  All  existing  liabilities  are  valid  against  the  17.  S. 

2.  The  Constitution,  laws,  and  treaties  are  the  supreme  law 

of  the  land, 
judges  in  every  State  bound  thereby. 

3.  All  officers,  executive,  legislative,  and  judicial,  both  Fed- 

eral -and  State,  to  be  bound  by  oath  or  affirmation 
to  support  the  Constitution, 
no  religious  test  shall  be  required  as  a  qualification 
to  any  office. 

ARTICLE    VII. 

The  ratification  of  nine  States  sufficient. 

Attestation  clause. 

Signatures. 


xii  Table  of  Contents. 

AMENDMENTS. 


ARTICLE  I. 

Congress   can   make   no   law   respecting  religion. 

or  abridging  the  freedom  of  speech  or  of  the  press. 
or  the   right  to  peaceably  assemble   and  petition  for 
redress. 

ARTICLE  IT. 

The  right  of  the  people  to  keep  and  bear  arms  shall  not 
be  infringed. 

ARTICLE  III. 

No  soldier  to  be  quartered  in  any  house  without  the  con- 
sent of  the  owner, 
nor  in  time  of  war,  but  in  a  manner  prescribed  by 
law. 

ARTICLE  IV. 

The  right  of  security  against  searches  and  seizures  shall 
not  be  violated, 
warrants  on  probable  cause  to  be  supported  by  oath 

or  affirmation, 
the  place,  person,  and   thing  to  be   described  in  the 


warrant. 


ARTICLE   V. 


Presentment  or  indictment  before  grand  jury  essential  to 

trial   for   crime, 
except  as  to  land  or  naval  forces  or  militia  in  time 

of  war. 
no  person  to  be  put  twice  in  jeopardy, 
nor  be  compelled  to  be  witness  against  himself, 
nor  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty,  or  property  without 

due  process  of  law. 
nor  shall  private  property  be  taken  for  public  use 

without  compensation. 

ARTICLE  VI. 

In  criminal  trials,  accused  shall  have  the  right  to  a  speedy 
and  public  trial, 
by  a  jury,  of  State  and  district  where  crime  was  com- 
mitted. 


.  Table  of  Contents.  xiii 

Art.  VI. — Continued. 

and  to  be  informed  of  the  nature  and  cause  of  ac- 
cusation. 

and  to  be  confronted  with  witnesses  against  him. 

and  to  have  compulsory  process  for  witnesses  in  his 
favor. 

and  to  have  the  assistance  of  counsel  for  his  defense. 

ARTICLE   VII. 

In  civil  actions,  the  right  of  trial  by  jury  shall  be  pre- 
served  where    the   value    in   controversy    exceeds 
twenty  dollars, 
facts  tried  by  jury  are  re-examinable  only  according 
to  the  rules'  of  common  law. 

ARTICLE  VIII. 

Excessive  bail  shall  not  be  required, 
nor  excessive  fines  imposed, 
nor  cruel  nor  unusual  punishments  inflicted. 

ARTICLE   IX. 

The  enumeration  of  rights  not  to  disparage  others  retained 
by  the  people. 

ARTICLE  X. 

Powers  not  delegated  nor  prohibited  to  the  States  are  re- 
served to  the  States  or  to  the  people. 

ARTICLE   XI. 

The  judicial  power  not  to  extend  to  actions  against  a 
State  by  citizen  of  another  Stat ),  or  of  a  foreign 
State. 

ARTICLE   XII. 

Presidential  electors  to  meet  in  their  respective  States. 

and  vote  by  ballot  for  President  and  Vice-President. 

the  ballots  for  each  office  to  be  distinct. 

distinct  lists  to  be  made,  signed,  certified,  and  trans- 
mitted to  the  President  of  the  Senate. 

the  President  of  the  Senate  to  open  the  certificates 
in  presence  of  both  houses  of  Congress. 

and  the  votes  shall  then  be  counted. 


xiv  Table  of  Contents. 

Art.  XII. — Continued. 

the  person  having  the  greatest  number  of  votes  shall 
be  President. 

if  there  be  no  majority  the  House  of  Representatives 
shall  elect  from  those  having  the  highest  number, 
not  exceeding  three. 

the  votes  shall  be  taken  by  States,  each  State  having 
one  vote. 

a  quorum  shall  consist  of  a  representation  from  two- 
thirds  of  the   States. 

a  majority  of  all  the  States  necessary  to  a  choice. 

if  the  House  neglect  to  choose  a  President,  the  Vice- 
President   shall   act  as  such. 

the  person  having  the  greatest  number  of  votes  for 
Vice-President  shall  be  Vice-President,  if  it  be  a 
majority  of  the  electors. 

if  not  such  majority,  then  the  Senate  shall  choose 
the  Vice-President  from  the  two  highest  on  the  list. 

a  quorum  shall  consist  of  two-thirds  of  the  whole 
number  of  Senators. 

a  majority  shall  be  necessary  for  a  choice. 

constitutional  ineligibility  for  President  renders  a 
person  ineligible   for  Vice-President. 

ARTICLE  Xin. 

Neither    slavery   nor   involuntary     servitude,   except     for 
crime,  shall  exist  in  the  United  States. 
Congress  may  enforce  this  article. 

ARTICLE  XIV. 

Sec.  1. — AH  persons  born  or  naturalized  in  the  U.  S.  are  citizens  of 

the  U.  S.  and  of  the  State  where  they  reside. 
States'  cannot  abridge  the  privileges  and  immunities 

of   citizens, 
nor  deprive  any  person  of  life,  liberty,  or  property 

without   due   process   of   law. 
nor  deny  to  any  person  the  equal  protection  of  the 

law. 
Sec.  2. — Eepresentatives  shall  be  apportioned  according  to  the  whole 

number  of  persons  in  each  State,  excluding  Indians 

not   taxed, 
but  when  the  right  to  vote  is  denied  to  male  citizens 

over  twenty-one,  the  basis  of  representation   shall 

be   reduced    accordingly. 
except   for    participation   in    rebellion    or    for   other 

crimes. 


Table  of  Contents.  xv 

Art.  XIV.— Continued. 

Sec.  3. — Persons   engaged  in   insurrection   or   rebellion  having  previ- 
ously taken  the  oath  to  support  the  Constitution  of 
the  U.  S.  are  disqualified  from  holding  office. 
Congress  may  by  a  two-third  vote  of  each  house  re- 
move the  disability. 
Sec.  4. — The  validity  of  the  public  debt  of  the  IT.  S.,  authorized  by 
law,  shall  not  be  questioned, 
debts  or  obligations1  incurred  in  aid  of  rebellion  are 

illegal  and  void, 
claims  for  loss  or  emancipation  of  any  slave  are  ille- 
gal  and  void. 
Sec.  5. — Congress  shall  have  power  to  enforce  these  provisions. 

ARTICLE  XV. 

Sec.  1 The  right  of  citizens  to  vote  shall  not  be  denied  or  abridged 

on  account  of  race,  color,  or  previous  condition  of 
servitude. 

Sec.  2 — Congress  shall  have  power  to  enforce  this  article. 


NOTES 


CONSTITUTION 


UNITED  STATES. 


TEXT   OF   THE   CONSTITUTION. 

We  the  People  of  the  United  States,  in  Order  to  form 
a  more  perfect  Union,  establish  Justice,  insure  domestic 
Tranquility,  provide  for  the  common  defence,  promote 
the  general  Welfare,  and  secure  the  Blessings  of  Lib- 
erty to  ourselves  and  our  Posterity,  do  ordain  and  es- 
tablish this  Constitution  for  the  United  States  of 
America. 

ARTICLE  I. 

Section  1.  All  legislative  Powers  herein  granted 
shall  be  vested  in  a  Congress  of  the  United  States, 
which  shall  consist  of  a  Senate  and  House  of  repre- 
sentatives. 

Section  2,  Clause  1.  The  House  of  Represntatives 
shall  be  composed  of  Members  chosen  every  second  Year 
by  the  People  of  the  several  States,  and  the  Electors  in 
each  State  shall  have  the  Qualifications  requisite  for 
Electors  of  the  most  numerous  Branch  of  the  State 
Legislature. 

2.  No  Person  shall  be  a  Representative  who  shall 
not  have  attained  to  the  Age  of  twenty-five  Years,  and 

Notes  on  Constitution' — 1 


Text  of  the  Constitution.  2 

been  seven  Years  a  Citizen  of  the  United  States,  and 
who  shall  not,  when  elected,  be  an  Inhabitant  of  that 
State  in  which  he  shall  be  chosen. 

3.  Representatives  and  direct  Taxes  shall  be  appor- 
tioned among  the  several  States  which  may  be  included 
within  this  Union,  according  to  their  respective  Num- 
bers, which  shall  be  determined  by  adding  to  the  whole 
Number  of  free  Persons,  including  those  bound  to  Ser- 
vice for  a  Term  of  Years,  and  excluding  Indians  not 
taxed,  three-fifths  of  all  other  Persons.  The  actual 
Enumeral  ion  shall  be  made  within  three  Years  after  the 
first  Meeting  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  and 
within  every  subsequent  Term  of  ten  Years,  in  such 
Manner  as  they  shall  by  Law  direct.  The  Number  of 
Representatives  shall  not  exceed  one  for  every  thirty 
thousand,  but  each  State  shall  have  at  least  one  Repre- 
sentative; and  until  such  Enumeration  shall  be  made, 
the  State  of  New  Hampshire  shall  be  entitled  to  choose 
three,  Massachusetts  eight,  Rhode  Island  and  Provi- 
dence Plantations  one,  Connecticut  five,  New  York  six, 
New  Jersey  four,  Pennsylvania  eight,  Delaware  one, 
Maryland  six,  Virginia  ten,  North  Carolina  five,  South 
Carolina  five,  and  Georgia  three. 

4.  When  Vacancies  happen  in  the  Representation 
from  any  State,  the  Executive  Authority  thereof  shall 
issue  Writs  of  election  to  fill  such  Vacancies. 

5.  The  House  of  Representatives  shall  chuse  their 
Speaker  and  other  Officers,  and  shall  have  the  sole 
Power  of  Impeachment. 

Section  3,  Clause  1.  The  Senate  of  the  United 
States  shall  be  composed  of  two  Senators  from  each 
State,  chosen  by  the  Legislature  thereof  for  six  Years, 
and  each  Senator  shall  have  one  Vote. 

2.     Immediately   after   they   shall   be   assembled   in 


3  Text  of  the  Constitution. 

consequence  of  the  first  Election,  they  shall  be  divided, 
as  equally  as  may  be,  into  three  Classes.  The  Seats  of 
the  Senators  of  the  first  Class  shall  be  vacated  at  the 
expiration  of  the  second  Year,  of  the  second  Class  at  the 
expiration  of  the  fourth  Year,  and  of  the  third  Class  at 
the  expiration  of  the  sixth  Year,  so  that  one-third  may 
be  chosen  every  second  Year ;  and  if  Vacancies  happen, 
by  Resignation  or  otherwise,  during  the  Recess  of  the 
Legislature  of  any  State,  the  Executive  thereof  may 
make  temporary  Appointments  until  the  next  Meeting 
of  the  Legislature,  which  shall  then  fill  such  Vacancies. 

3.  No  Person  shall  be  a  Senator  who  shall  not  have 
attained  to  the  Age  of  thirty  Years,  and  been  nine  Years 
a  Citizen  of  the  LTnited  States,  and  who  shall  not,  when 
elected,  be  an  Inhabitant  of  that  State  for  which  he 
shall  be  chosen. 

4.  The  Vice  President  of  the  United  States  shall  be 
President  of  the  Senate,  but  shall  have  no  Vote,  unless 
they  be  equally  divided. 

5.  The  Senate  shall  chuse  their  other  Officers,  and 
also  a  President  pro  tempore,  in  the  Absence  of  the 
Vice  President,  or  when  he  shall  exercise  the  Office  of 
President  of  the  United  States. 

6.  The  Senate  shall  have  the  sole  Power  to  try  all 
Impeachments.  When  sitting  for  that  Purpose,  they 
shall  be  on  Oath  or  Affirmation.  When  the  President 
of  the  United  States  is  tried,  the  Chief  Justice  shall 
preside:  And  no  Person  shall  be  convicted  without  the 
Concurrence  of  two-thirds  of  the  Members  present. 

7.  Judgment  in  Cases  of  Impeachment  shall  uot  ex- 
tend further  than  to  removal  from  Office,  and  disquali- 
fication to  hold  and  enjoy  any  Office  of  honor,  Trust  or 
Profit    under    the  United    States:    but  the  Party  con- 


Text  of  the  Constitution.  4 

victed  shall  nevertheless  be  liable  and  subject  to  Indict- 
ment, Trial,  Judgment  and  Punishment,  according  to 
Law. 

Section  4,  Clause  1.  The  Times,  Places  and  Man- 
ner of  holding  Elections  for  Senators  and  Representa- 
tives, shall  be  prescribed  in  each  State  by  the  Legisla- 
ture thereof ;  but  the  Congress  may  at  any  time  by  Law 
make  or  alter  such  Regulations,  except  as  to  the  Places 
of  causing  Senators. 

2.  The  Congress  shall  assemble  at  least  once  in  every 
Year,  and  such  Meeting  shall  be  on  the  first  Monday  in 
December,  unless  they  shall  by  Law  appoint  a  different 
Day. 

Section  5,  Clause  1.  Each  House  shall  be  the  Judge 
of  the  Elections,  Returns,  and  Qualifications  of  its  own 
Members,  and  a  Majority  of  each  shall  constitute  a 
Quorum  to  do  Business;  but  a  smaller  Number  may  ad- 
journ from  Day  to  Day,  and  may  be  authorized  to  com- 
pel the  Attendance  of  absent  Members,  in  such  Manner 
and  under  such  Penalties  as  each  House  may  provide. 

2.  Each  House  may  determine  the  Rules  of  its  Pro- 
ceedings, punish  its  Members  for  disorderly  Behavior, 
and,  with  the  Concurrence  of  two-thirds,  expel  a  Mem- 
ber. 

3.  Each  House  shall  keep  a  Journal  of  its  Proceed- 
ings, and  from  Time  to  Time  publish  the  same,  except- 
ing such  parts  as  may  in  their  Judgment  require  Se- 
crecy ;  and  the  Yeas  and  Nays  of  the  Members  of  either 
House,  on  any  Question,  shall,  at  the  Desire  of  one-fifth 
of  those  present,  be  entered  on  the  Journal. 

4.  Neither  House  during  the  Session  of  Congress 
shall,  without  the  Consent  of  the  other,  adjourn  for 
more  than  three  Days,  nor  to  any  other  Place  than  that 
in  which  the  two  Houses  shall  be  sitting. 


5  Text  of  the  Constitution". 

Section  6,  Clause  1.  The  Senators  and  Representa- 
tives shall  receive  a  Compensation  for  their  Services,  to 
be  ascertained  by  Law  and  paid  out  of  the  Treasury  of 
the  United  States.  They  shall  in  all  Cases,  except 
Treason,  Felony,  and  Breach  of  the  Peace,  be  privileged 
from  Arrest  during  their  Attendance  at  the  Session  of 
their  respective  Houses,  and  in  going  to  or  returning 
from  the  same;  and  for  any  Speech  or  Debate  in  either 
House,  they  shall  not  be  questioned  in  any  other  Place. 

2.  No  Senator  or  Eepresentative  shall,  during  the 
Time  for  which  he  was  elected,  be  appointed  to  any 
civil  Office  under  the  Authority  of  the  United  States, 
which  shall  have  been  created,  or  the  emoluments 
whereof  shall  have  been  increased,  during  such  Time; 
and  no  Person  holding  any  Office  under  the  United 
States  shall  be  a  Member  of  either  House  during  his  con- 
tinuance in  Office. 

Section  7,  Clause  1.  All  Bills  for  raising  Revenue 
shall  originate  in  the  House  of  Representatives ;  but  the 
Senate  may  propose  or  concur  with  Amendments  as  on 
other  Bills. 

2.  Every  Bill  which  shall  have  passed  the  House  of 
Representatives  and  the  Senate,  shall,  before  it  become 
a  Law,  be  presented  to  the  President  of  the  United 
States ;  If  he  approve  he  shall  sign  it,  but  if  not  he  shall 
return  it,  with  his  Objections  to  that  House  in  which  it 
shall  have  originated,  who  shall  enter  the  Objections  at 
large  on  their  Journal,  and  proceed  to  reconsider  it. 
If  after  such  Reconsideration  two  thirds  of  that  House 
shall  agree  to  pass  the  Bill,  it  shall  be  sent,  together 
with  the  Objections,  to  the  other  House,  by  which  it 
shall  likewise  be  reconsidered,  and  if  approved  by  two 
thirds  of  that  House,  it  shall  become  a  Law.  But  in 
all  such  Cases  the  Votes  of  both  Houses  shall  be  deter- 


Text  of  the  Constitution.  6 

mined  by  Yeas  and  Nays,  and  the  Names  of  the  Persons 
voting  for  and  against  the  Bill  shall  be  entered  on  the 
Journal  of  each  House  respectively.  If  any  Bill  shall 
not  be  returned  by  the  President  within  ten  days  ( Sun- 
days excepted)  after  it  shall  have  been  presented  to 
him,  the  Same  shall  be  a  Law,  in  like  Manner  as  if  he 
had  signed  it,  unless  the  Congress  by  their  Adjournment 
prevent  its  Return,  in  which  Case  it  shall  not  be  a  Law. 

3.  Every  Order,  Resolution,  or  Vote  to  which  the 
Concurrence  of  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representa- 
tives may  be  necessary  (except  on  a  question  of  Ad- 
journment) shall  be  presented  to  the  President  of  the 
United  States;  and  before  the  Same  shall  take  Effect, 
shall  be  approved  by  him,  or  being  disapproved  by  him, 
shall  be  repassed  by  two  thirds  of  the  Senate  and  House 
of  Representatives,  according  to  the  Rules  and  Limita- 
tions prescribed  in  the  Case  of  a  Bill. 

Section  8,  Clause  1.  The  Congress  shall  have  Power 
To  lay  and  collect  Taxes,  Duties,  Imposts  and  Excises, 
to  pay  the  Debts  and  provide  for  the  common  Defence 
and  general  Welfare  of  the  United  States;  but  all  Du- 
ties, Imposts  and  Excises  shall  be  uniform  throughout 
the  United  States; 

2.  To  Borrow  Money  on  the  Credit  of  the  United 
States; 

3.  To  regulate  Commerce  with  Foreign  Nations,  and 
among  the  several  States,  and  with  the  Indian  Tribes; 

4.  To  establish  a  uniform  Rule  of  Naturalization, 
and  uniform  Laws  on  the  Subject  of  Bankruptcies, 
throughout  the  United  States; 

5.  To  coin  Money,  regulate  the  Value  th proof  and  of 
foreign  Coin,  and  fix  the  Standard  of  Weights  and 
Measures ; 


7  Text  of  the  Constitution-. 

6.  To  provide  for  the  Punishment  of  Counterfeiting 
the  Securities  and  Current  Coin  of  the  United  States: 

7.  To  establish  Post-offices  and  Post-roads; 

8.  To  promote  the  Progress  of  Science  and  useful 
Arts,  by  securing  for  limited  Times  to  Authors  and  In- 
ventors the  exclusive  Right  to  their  respective  Writings 
and  Discoveries; 

9.  To  constitute  Tribunals  inferior  to  the  Supreme 
Court ; 

10.  To  define  and  punish  Felonies  committed  on  the 
high  Seas,  and  Offenses  against  the  Law  of  Nations; 

11.  To  declare  War,  grant  Letters  of  Marque  and 
Reprisal,  and  make  rules  concerning  Captures  on  Land 
and  Water; 

12.  To  raise  and  support  Armies ;  but  no  Appropria- 
tion of  Money  to  that  Use  shall  be  for  a  longer  Term 
than  two  Years; 

13.  To  provide  and  maintain  a  Navy; 

14.  To  make  Rules  for  the  Government  and  Regula- 
tion of  the  Land  and  Naval  Forces ; 

15.  To  provide  for  calling  forth  the  Militia  to  exe- 
cute the  Laws  of  the  Union,  suppress  Insurrections,  and 
repel  Invasions; 

16.  To  provide  for  organizing,  arming,  and  disciplin- 
ing the  Militia,  and  for  governing  such  part  of  them  as 
may  be  employed  in  the  Service  of  the  United  States, 
reserving  to  the  States  respectively  the  Appointment  of 
the  officers,  and  the  Authority  of  training  the  Militia 
according  to  the  discipline  prescribed  by  Congress; 

17.  To  exercise  exclusive  Legislation  in  all  Cases 
whatsoever,  over  such  District  (not  exceeding  ten  Miles 
square)  as  may,  by  Cession  of  particular   States,  and 


Text  of  the  Constitution-.  8 

the  Acceptance  of  Congress,  become  the  Seat  of  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States,  and  to  exercise  like  Au- 
thority over  all  Places  purchased  by  the  Consent  of  the 
Legislature  of  the  State  in  which  the  Same  shall  be, 
for  the  Erection  of  Forts,  Magazines,  Arsenals,  dock- 
Yards,  and  other  needful  Buildings; — And 

18.  To  make  all  Laws  which  shall  be  necessary  and 
proper  for  carrying  into  Execution  the  foregoing  Pow- 
ers, and  all  other  Powers  vested  by  this  Constitution  in 
the  Government  of  the  United  States,  or  in  any  Depart- 
ment or  Officer  thereof; 

Section  9,  Clause  1.  The  Migration  or  Importation 
of  such  Persons  as  any  of  the  States  now  existing  shall 
think  proper  to  admit,  shall  not  be  prohibited  by  the 
Congress  prior  to  the  Year  one  thousand  eight  hundred 
and  eight,  but  a  Tax  or  duty  may  be  imposed  on  such 
Importation,  not  exceeding  ten  dollars  for  each  Person. 

2.  The  Privilege  of  the  Writ  of  Habeas  Corpus  shall 
not  be  suspended,  unless  when  in  Cases  of  Rebellion  or 
Invasion  the  public  Safety  may  require  it. 

3.  No  Bill  of  Attainder  or  ex  post  facto  Law  shall  be 
passed. 

4.  No  Capitation,  or  other  direct,  tax  shall  be  laid, 
unless  in  Proportion  to  the  Census  or  Enumeration 
herein  before  directed  to  be  taken. 

5.  No  Tax  or  Duty  shall  be  laid  on  Articles  exported 
from  any  State. 

6.  No  Preference  shall  be  given  by  any  Regulation 
of  Commerce  or  Revenue  to  the  Ports  of  one  State  over 
those  of  another:  nor  shall  Vessels  bound  to,  or  from, 
one  State,  be  obliged  to  enter,  clear,  or  pay  Duties  in 
another. 

7.  No  Money  shall  be  drawn  from  the  Treasury,  but 


9  Text  of  the  Constitution. 

in  Consequence  of  Appropriations  made  by  Law;  and 
a  regular  Statement  and  Account  of  the  Receipts  and 
Expenditures  of  all  public  Money  shall  be  published 
from  time  to  time. 

8.  No  Title  of  Nobility  shall  be  granted  by  the 
United  States:  and  no  Person  holding  any  Office  of 
Profit  or  Trust  under  them,  shall,  without  the  Consent 
of  the  Congress,  accept  of  any  present,  Emolument, 
Office,  or  Title,  of  any  kind  whatever,  from  any  King, 
Prince,  or  foreign  State. 

Section  10,  Clause  1.  No  State  shall  enter  into  any 
Treaty,  Alliance,  or  Confederation;  grant  Letters  of 
Marque  and  Reprisal ;  coin  Money ;  emit  Bills  of  Credit ; 
make  any  Thing  but  gold  and  silver  Coin  a  Tender  in 
Payment  of  Debts;  pass  any  Bill  of  Attainder,  ex  post 
facto  Law,  or  Law  impairing  the  Obligation  of  Con- 
tracts, or  grant  any  Title  of  Nobility. 

2.  No  State  shall,  without  the  Consent  of  the  Con- 
gress, lay  any  Imposts  or  Duties  on  Imports  or  Exports, 
except  what  may  be  absolutely  necessary  for  executing 
its  inspection  Laws :  and  the  net  Produce  of  all  Duties 
and  Imposts,  laid  by  any  State  on  Imports  or  Exports, 
shall  be  for  the  Use  of  the  Treasury  of  the  United 
States;  and  all  such  Laws  shall  be  subject  to  the  Re- 
vision and  Controul  of  the  Congress. 

3.  No  State  shall,  without  the  Consent  of  Congress, 
lay  any  Duty  of  Tonnage,  keep  Troops,  or  Ships  of  War 
in  time  of  Peace,  enter  into  any  Agreement  or  Compact 
with  another  State,  or  with  a  foreign  Power,  or  engage 
in  War,  unless  actually  invaded,  or  in  such  imminent 
Danger  as  Avill  not  admit  of  delay. 


Text  of  the  Constitution.  10 


ARTICLE  II. 
Section  1,  Clause  1.  The  executive  Power  shall  be 
vested  in  a  President  of  the  United  States  of  America. 
He  shall  hold  his  Office  during  the  Term  of  four  Years, 
and,  together  with  the  Vice  President,  chosen  for  the 
same  Term,  be  elected,  as  follows 

2.  Each  State  shall  appoint,  in  such  Manner  as  the 
Legislature  thereof  may  direct,  a  Number  of  Electors, 
equal  to  the  whole  number  of  Senators  and  Representa- 
tives to  which  the  State  may  be  entitled  in  the  Con- 
gress :  but  no  Senator  or  Representative,  or  Person  hold- 
ing an  Office  of  Trust  or  Profit  under  the  United  States, 
shall  be  appointed  an  Elector. 

3.  ["The  electors  shall  meet  in  their  respective 
States,  and  vote  by  ballot  for  two  Persons,  of  whom  one 
at  least  shall  not  be  an  Inhabitant  of  the  same  State 
with  themselves.  And  they  shall  make  a  List  of  all  the 
Persons  voted  for,  and  of  the  Number  of  Votes  for  each ; 
which  List  they  shall  sign  and  certify,  and  transmit 
sealed  to  the  Seat  of  the  Government  of  the  United 
States,  directed  to  the  President  of  the  Senate.  The 
President  of  the  Senate  shall,  in  the  Presence  of  the 
Senate  and  House  of  Representatives,  open  all  the  Cer- 
tificates, and  the  Votes  shall  then  be  counted.  The  Per- 
son having  the  greatest  Number  of  Votes  shall  be  the 
President,  if  such  Number  be  a  Majority  of  the  whole 
Number  of  Electors  appointed;  and  if  there  be  more 
than  one  who  have  such  Majority,  and  have  an  equal 
Number  of  Votes,  then  the  House  of  Representatives 
shall  immediately  chuse  by  Ballot  one  of  them  for  Presi- 
dent; and  if  no  Person  have  a  Majority,  then  from  the 


11  Text  of  the  Constitution". 

five  highest  on  the  List  the  said  House  shall  in  like  Man- 
ner chuse  the  President.  But  in  chusing  the  President, 
the  Votes  shall  be  taken  by  States,  the  Representation 
from  each  State  having  one  Vote;  A  quorum  for  this 
Purpose  shall  consist  of  a  Member  or  Members  from 
two-thirds  of  the  States,  and  a  Majority  of  all  the  States 
shall  be  necessary  to  a  Choice,  In  every  Case,  after 
the  Choice  of  the  President,  the  Person  having  the 
greatest  Number  of  Votes  of  the  Electors  shall  be  the 
Vice-President.  But  if  there  should  remain  two  or 
more  who  have  equal  Votes,  the  Senate  shall  chuse  from 
them  by  Ballot  the  Vice-President."] 

This  Clause  has  been  superseded  by  the  twelfth 
amendment. 

4.  The  Congress  may  determine  the  Time  of  chusing 
the  Electors,  and  the  Day  on  which  they  shall  give 
their  Votes;  which  Day  shall  be  the  same  throughout 
the  United  States. 

5.  No  Person  except  a  natural  born  Citizen,  or  a 
Citizen  of  the  United  States,  at  the  time  of  the  adoption 
of  this  Constitution,  shall  be  eligible  to  the  Office  of 
President;  neither  shall  any  Person  be  eligible  to  that 
Office  who  shall  not  have  attained  to  the  Age  of  thirty 
five  Years,  and  been  fourteen  Years  a  Resident  within 
the  United  States. 

6.  In  Case  of  the  Removal  of  the  President  from 
Office,  or  of  his  Death,  Resignation,  or  Inability  to  dis- 
charge the  Powers  and  Duties  of  the  said  Office,  the 
same  shall  devolve  on  the  Vice  President,  and  the  Con- 
gress may  by  Law  provide  for  the  Case  of  Removal, 
Death,  Resignation,  or  Inability,  both  of  the  President 
and  Vice  President,  declaring  what  Officer  shall  then 
act  as  President,  and  such  Officer  shall  act  accordingly, 


Text  of  the  Constitution".  12 

until  the  Disability  be  removed,  or  a  President   shall 
be  elected. 

7.  The  President  shall,  at  stated  Times,  receive  for 
his  Services,  a  Compensation,  which  shall  neither  be  en- 
creased  nor  diminished  during  the  Period  for  which  he 
shall  have  been  elected,  and  he  shall  not  receive  within 
that  Period  any  other  Emolument  from  the  United 
States,  or  any  of  them. 

8.  Before  he  enter  on  the  Execution  of  his  Office,  he 
shall  take  the  following  Oath  or  Affirmation: — "I  do 
solemnly  swear  (or  affirm)  that  I  will  faithfully  exe- 
cute the  Office  of  President  of  the  United  States,  and 
will  to  the  best  of  my  Ability,  preserve,  protect  and  de- 
fend the  Constitution  of  the  United  States." 

Section  2,  Clause  1.  The  President  shall  be  Com- 
mander in  Chief  of  the  Army  and  Navy  of  the  United 
States,  and  of  the  Militia  of  the  several  States,  when 
called  into  the  actual  Service  of  the  United  States;  he 
may  require  the  Opinion,  in  writing,  of  the  principal 
Officer  in  each  of  the  executive  Departments,  upon  any 
Subject  relating  to  the  Duties  of  their  respective  Offices, 
and  he  shall  have  Power  to  grant  Reprieves  and  Par- 
dons for  Offences  against  the  United  States,  except  in 
Cases  of  Impeachment. 

2.  He  shall  have  Power,  by  and  with  the  Advice  and 
Consent  of  the  Senate,  to  make  Treaties,  provided  two 
thirds  of  the  Senators  present  concur;  and  he  shall 
nominate,  and  by  and  with  the  Advice  and  Consent  of 
the  Senate,  shall  appoint  Ambassadors,  other  public 
Ministers  and  Consuls,  Judges  of  the  supreme  Court, 
and  all  other  Officers  of  the  United  States,  whose  Ap- 
pointments are  not  herein  otherwise  provided  for,  and 
which  shall  be  established  by  Law :  but  the  Congress 


13  Text  of  the  Constitution. 

may  by  Law  vest  the  Appointment  of  such  inferior  Offi- 
cers as  they  think  proper,  in  the  President  alone,  in 
the  Courts  of  Law,  or  in  the  Heads  of  Departments. 

3.  The  President  shall  have  Power  to  fill  up  all  Va- 
cancies that  may  happen  during  the  Eecess  of  the  Sen- 
ate, by  granting  Commissions  which  shall  expire  at  the 
End  of  their  next  Session. 

Section  3.  He  shall  from  time  to  time  give  to  the 
Congress  Information  of  the  State  of  the  Union,  and 
recommend  to  their  Consideration  such  Measures  as  he 
shall  judge  necessary  and  expedient;  he  may,  on  ex- 
traordinary Occasions,  convene  both  Houses,  or  either 
of  them,  and  in  Case  of  Disagreement  between  them, 
with  Kespect  to  the  Time  of  Adjournment,  he  may  ad- 
journ them  to  such  Time  as  he  shall  think  proper;  he 
shall  receive  Ambassadors  and  other  public  Ministers; 
he  shall  take  Care  that  the  Laws  be  faithfully  executed, 
and  shall  Commission  all  the  Officers  of  the  United 
States. 

Section  4.  The  President,  Vice  President  and  all 
civil  Officers  of  the  United  States,  shall  be  removed 
from  Office  on  Impeachment  for,  and  Conviction  of, 
Treason,  Bribery,  or  other  high  Crimes  and  Misdemean- 
ors. 

ARTICLE  III. 

Section  1.  The  judicial  Power  of  the  United  States, 
shall  be  vested  in  one  supreme  Court,  and  in  such  in- 
ferior Courts  as  the  Congress  may  from  time  to  time 
ordain  and  establish.  The  Judges,  both  of  the  supreme 
and  inferior  Courts,  shall  hold  their  Offices  during  good 
Behaviour,  and  shall,  at  stated  Times,  receive  for  their 
Services,  a  Compensation,  which  shall  not  be  dimin- 
ished durimr  their  Continuance  in  Office. 


Text  of  the  Constitution.  14 

Section  2,  Clause  1.  The  judicial  Power  shall  ex- 
tend to  all  Cases,  in  Law  and  Equity,  arising  under  this 
Constitution,  the  Laws  of  the  United  States,  and 
Treaties  made,  or  which  shall  be  made,  under  their  Au- 
thority;— to  all  Cases  affecting  Ambassadors,  other 
public  Ministers  and  Consuls; — to  all  Cases  of  admir- 
alty and  maritime  Jurisdiction; — to  Controversies  to 
which  the  United  States  shall  be  a  Party; — to  Contro- 
versies between  two  or  more  States; — between  a  State 
and  Citizens  of  another  State; — between  Citizens  of  dif- 
ferent States, — between  Citizens  of  the  same  State 
claiming  Lands  under  Grants  of  different  States,  and 
between  a  State,  or  the  Citizens  thereof,  and  foreign 
States,  Citizens  or  Subjects. 

2.  In  all  Cases  affecting  Ambassadors,  other  public 
Ministers  and  Consuls,  and  those  in  which  a  State  shall 
be  Party,  the  supreme  Court  shall  have  original  Juris- 
diction. In  all  the  other  Cases  before  mentioned,  the 
supreme  Court  shall  have  appellate  Jurisdiction,  both 
as  to  Law  and  Fact,  with  such  Exceptions,  and  under 
such  Regulations  as  the  Congress  shall  make. 

3.  The  Trial  of  all  Crimes,  except  in  Cases  of  Im- 
peachment, shall  be  by  Jury;  and  such  Trial  shall  be 
held  in  the  State  where  the  said  Crimes  shall  have  been 
committed;  but  when  not  committed  within  any  State, 
the  Trial  shall  be  at  such  Place  or  Places  as  the  Con- 
gress may  by  Law  have  directed. 

Section  3,  Clause  1.  Treason  against  the  United 
States,  shall  consist  only  in  levying  War  against  them, 
or  in  adhering  to  their  Enemies,  giving  them  Aid  and 
Comfort.  No  Person  shall  be  convicted  of  Treason  un- 
less on  the  Testimony  of  two  Witnesses  to  the  same 
overt  Act,  or  on  Confession  in  open  Court. 


15  Text  of  the  Constitution. 

2.  The  Congress  shall  have  Power  to  declare  the 
Punishment  of  Treason,  but  no  Attainder  of  Treason 
shall  work  Corruption  of  Blood,  or  Forfeiture  except 
during  the  Life  of  the  Person  attainted. 

AETICLE  IV. 
Section  1.  Full  Faith  and  Credit  shall  be  given  in 
each  State  to  the  public  Acts,  Records,  and  judicial 
Proceedings  of  every  other  State.  And  the  Congress 
may  by  general  Laws  prescribe  the  Manner  in  which 
such  Acts,  Records  and  Proceedings  shall  be  proved, 
and  the  Effect  thereof. 

Section  2,  Clause  1.  The  Citizens  of  each  State 
shall  be  entitled  to  all  Privileges  and  Immunities  of 
Citizens  in  the  several  States. 

2.  A  Person  charged  in  any  State  with  Treason,  Fel- 
ony, or  other  Crime,  who  shall  flee  from  Justice,  and  be 
found  in  another  State,  shall  on  Demand  of  the  execu- 
tive Authority  of  the  State  from  which  he  fled,  be  de- 
livered up  to  be  removed  to  the  State  having  Jurisdic- 
tion of  the  Crime. 

3.  No  Person  held  to  Service  or  Labour  in  one  State, 
under  the  Laws  thereof,  escaping  into  another,  shall,  in 
Consequence  of  any  Law  or  Regulation  therein,  be  dis- 
charged from  such  Service  or  Labour,  but  shall  be  de- 
livered up  on  Claim  of  the  Party  to  whom  such  Service 
or  Labour  may  be  due. 

Section  3,  Clause  1.  New  States  may  be  admitted 
by  the  Congress  into  this  Union ;  but  no  new  State  shall 
be  formed  or  erected  within  the  Jurisdiction  of  any 
other  State;  nor  any  State  be  formed  by  the  Junction 
of  two  or  more  States,  or  Parts  of  States,  without  the 
Consent  of  the  Legislatures  of  the  States  concerned  as 
well  as  of  the  Congress. 


Text  of  the  Constitution.  16 

2.  The  Congress  shall  have  Power  to  dispose  of  and 
make  all  needful  Rules  and  Regulations  respecting  the 
Territory  or  other  Property  belonging  to  the  United 
States;  and  nothing  in  this  Constitution  shall  be  so 
construed  as  to  Prejudice  any  Claims  of  the  United 
States,  or  of  any  particular  State. 

Section  4.  The  United  States  shall  guarantee  to 
every  State  in  this  Union  a  Republican  Form  of  Gov- 
ernment, and  shall  protect  each  of  them  against  Inva- 
sion; and  on  Application  of  the  Legislature,  or  of  the 
Executive  (when  the  Legislature  cannot  be  convened) 
against  domestic  Violence. 

ARTICLE   V. 

The  Congress,  whenever  two  thirds  of  both  Houses 
shall  deem  it  necessary,  shall  propose  Amendments  to 
this  Constitution,  or,  on  the  Application  of  the  Legis- 
latures of  two  thirds  of  the  several  States,  shall  call  a 
Convention  for  proposing  Amendments,  which,  in 
either  Case,  shall  be  valid  to  all  Intents  and  Purposes, 
as  Part  of  this  Constitution,  when  ratified  by  the  Legis- 
latures of  three  fourths  of  the  several  States,  or  by  Con- 
ventions in  three  fourths  thereof,  as  the  one  or  the 
other  Mode  of  Ratification  may  be  proposed  by  the  Con- 
gress ;  Provided  that  no  Amendment  wThich  may  be  made 
prior  to  the  Year  One  thousand  eight  hundred  and 
eight  shall  in  any  Manner  affect  the  first  and  fourth 
clauses  in  the  Ninth  Section  of  the  first  Article;  and 
that  no  State,  without  its  Consent,  shall  be  deprived  of 
its  equal  Suffrage  in  the  Senate. 

ARTICLE  VI. 

1.  All  Debts  contracted  and  Engagements  entered 
into,  before  the  Adoption  of  this  Constitution,  shall  be 


17  Text  of  the  Constitution. 

as  valid  against  the  United  States  under  this  Constitu- 
tion, as  under  the  Confederation. 

2.  This  Constitution,  and  the  Laws  of  the  United 
States  which  shall  be  made  in  Pursuance  thereof;  and 
all  Treaties  made,  or  which  shall  be  made,  under  the 
Authority  of  the  United  States,  shall  be  the  supreme 
Law  of  the  Land;  and  the  Judges  in  every  State  shall 
be  bound  thereby,  any  Thing  in  the  Constitution  or 
Laws  of  any  State  to  the  Contrary  notwithstanding. 

3.  The  Senators  and  Representatives  before  men- 
tioned, and  the  Members  of  the  several  State  Legisla- 
tures, and  all  executive  and  judicial  Officers,  both  of  the 
United  States  and  of  the  several  States,  shall  be  bound 
by  Oath  or  Affirmation,  to  support  this  Constitution; 
but  no  religious  Test  shall  ever  be  required  as  a  Quali- 
fication to  any  Office  or  public  Trust  under  the  United 
States. 

ARTICLE  VII. 

The  Ratification  of  the  Conventions  of  nine  States, 
shall  be  sufficient  for  the  establishment  of  this  Consti- 
tution between  the  States  so  ratifying  the  Same. 

Done  in  Convention  by  the  Unanimous  Consent  of  the 
States  present  the  Seventeenth  Day  of  September 
in  the  Year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  seven  hundred 
and  Eighty  seven,  and  of  the  Independence  of  the 
United  States  of  America  the  Twelfth  In  Witness 
whereof  We  have  hereunto  subscribed  our  Names, 

Go:  WASHINGTON— 
Presidt.  and  Deputy  from  Virginia 

New   Hampshire. 
John  Langdon  Nicholas  Gilman 

Notes  on  Constitution — 2 


Text  of  the  Constitution.  18 

Massachusetts. 
Nathaniel  Gorham  Rufus  King 

Connecticut. 
Wm.  Saml.  Johnson  Roger  Sherman 

New  York. 
Alexander  Hamilton 

New  Jersey. 
Wil :  Livingston  Wm.  Paterson 

David  Brearley  Jona :  Dayton 

Pennsylvania. 
B.  Franklin  Thos.  Fitzsimons 

Thomas  Mimin  Jared  Ingersoll 

Robt.  Morris  James  Wilson 

Geo.  Clymer  Gouv  Morris 

Delaware. 
Geo :  Read  Richard  Bassett 

Gunning  Bedford  Jun         Jaco :  Broom 
John  Dickinson 

Maryland. 
James  McHenry  Danl.  Carroll 

Dan  of  St  Thos  Jenifer 

Virginia. 
John  Blair —  James  Madison  Jr. 

North  Carolina. 
Wm.  Blount  Hu  Williamson. 

Richd.  Dobbs  Spaight 


19  Text  of  the  Constitution. 

South  Carolina. 
J.  Rutledge,  Charles  Pinckney 

Charles  Cotesworth  Pinckney         Pierce  Butler. 

Georgia. 
William  Few  Abr  Baldwin 

Attest  WILLIAM  JACKSON,  Secretary. 


ARTICLES  IN  ADDITION  TO,  AND  AMENDMENT  OF,  THE  CON- 
STITUTION OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA,  PRO- 
POSED BY  CONGRESS,  AND  RATIFIED  BY  THE  LEGISLA- 
TURES OF  THE  SEVERAL  STATES  PURSUANT  TO  THE 
FIFTH  ARTICLE  OF  THE  ORIGINAL  CONSTITUTION. 

[ARTICLE  I.] 
Congress  shall  make  no  law  respecting  an  establish- 
ment of  religion,  or  prohibiting  the  free  exercise 
thereof;  or  abridging  the  freedom  of  speech,  or  of  the 
press;  or  the  right  of  the  people  peaceably  to  assemble, 
and  to  petition  the  Government  for  a  redress  of  griev- 
ances. 

[ARTICLE   II.] 
A  well  regulated  Militia,  being  necessary  to  the  secu- 
rity of  a  free  State,  the  right  of  the  people  to  keep  and 
bear  Arms,  shall  not  be  infringed. 

[ARTICLE  III.] 
No  Soldier  shall,  in  time  of  peace  be  quartered  in  any 
house,  without  the  consent  of  the  Owner,  nor  in  time  of 
war,  but  in  a  manner  to  be  prescribed  by  law. 


Text  of  the  Constitution.  20 

[ARTICLE  IV.] 
The  right  of  the  people  to  be  secure  in  their  persons, 
houses,  papers,  and  effects,  against  unreasonable 
searches  and  seizures,  shall  not  be  violated,  and  no  War- 
rants shall  issue,  but  upon  probable  cause,  supported  by 
Oath  or  affirmation,  and  particularly  describing  the 
place  to  be  searched,  and  the  persons  or  things  to  be 
seized. 

[ARTICLE  V.] 
No  person  shall  be  held  to  answer  for  a  capital,  or 
otherwise  infamous  crime,  unless  on  a  presentment  or 
indictment  of  a  Grand  Jury,  except  in  cases  arising  in 
the  land  or  naval  forces,  or  in  the  Militia,  when  in 
actual  service  in  time  of  War  or  public  danger;  nor 
shall  any  person  be  subject  for  the  same  offence  to  be 
twice  put  in  jeopardy  of  life  or  limb;  nor  shall  be  com- 
pelled in  any  Criminal  Case  to  be  a  witness  against 
himself,  nor  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty,  or  property, 
without  due  process  of  law;  nor  shall  private  property 
be  taken  for  public  use,  without  just  compensation. 


[ARTICLE  VI.] 
In  all  criminal  prosecutions,  the  accused  shall  enjoy 
the  right  to  a  speedy  and  public  trial,  by  an  impartial 
jury  of  the  State  and  district  wherein  the  crime  shall 
have  been  committed,  which  district  shall  have  been 
previously  ascertained  by  law,  and  to  be  informed  of 
the  nature  and  cause  of  the  accusation;  to  be  confronted 
with  the  witnesses  against  him;  to  have  compulsory 
process  for  obtaining  Witnesses  in  his  favor,  and  to 
have  the  Assistance  of  Counsel  for  his  defence. 


21  Text  of  the  Constitution. 

[ARTICLE  VII.] 
In  suits  at  common  law,  where  the  value  in  contro- 
versy shall  exceed  twenty  dollars,  the  right  of  trial  by 
jury  shall  be  preserved,  and  no  fact  tried  by  a  jury  shall 
be  otherwise  re-examined  in  any  Court  of  the  United 
States,  than  according  to  the  rules  of  the  common  law. 

[ARTICLE  VIII.] 

Excessive  bail  shall  not  be  required,  nor  excessive 
fines  imposed,  nor  cruel  and  unusual  punishments  in- 
flicted. 

[ARTICLE  IX.] 

The  enumeration  in  the  Constitution,  of  certain 
rights,  shall  not  be  construed  to  deny  or  disparage  oth- 
ers retained  by  the  people. 

[ARTICLE    X.] 
The  powers  not  delegated  to  the  United  States  by  the 
Constitution,  nor  prohibited  by  it  to  the  States,  are  re- 
served to  the  States  respectively,  or  to  the  people. 

[ARTICLE  XL] 
The  Judicial  power  of  the  United  States  shall  not  be 
construed  to  extend  to  any  suit  in  law  or  equity,  com- 
menced or  prosecuted  against  one  of  the  United  States 
by  Citizens  of  another  State,  or  by  Citizens  or  Subjects 
of  any  Foreign  State. 

[ARTICLE  XII.] 
The  Electors  shall  meet  in  their  respective  states,  and 
vote  by  ballot  for  President  and  Vice-President,  one  of 
whom,  at  least,  shall  not  be  an  inhabitant  of  the  same 


Text  of  the  Constitution.  22 

state  with  themselves;  they  shall  name  in  their  ballots 
the  person  voted  for  as  President,  and  in  distinct  bal- 
lots the  person  voted  for  as  Vice-President,  and  they 
shall  make  distinct  lists  of  all  persons  voted  for  as 
President,  and  of  all  persons  voted  for  as  Vice-Presi- 
dent, and  of  the  number  of  votes  for  each,  which  lists 
they  shall  sign  and  certify,  and  transmit  sealed  to  the 
seat  of  the  government  of  the  United  States,  directed 
to  the  President  of  the  Senate; — The  President  of  the 
Senate  shall,  in  the  presence  of  the  Senate  and  House 
of  Representatives,  open  all  the  certificates  and  the  votes 
shall  then  be  counted; — The  person  having  the  great- 
est number  of  votes  for  President,  shall  be  the  Presi- 
dent, if  such  number  be  a  majority  of  the  whole  number 
of  Electors  appointed;  and  if  no  person  have  such  ma- 
jority, then  from  the  persons  having  the  highest  num- 
bers not  exceeding  three  on  the  list  of  those  voted  for  as 
President,  the  House  of  Representatives  shall  choose 
immediately,  by  ballot,  the  President.  But  in  choosing 
the  President,  the  votes  shall  be  taken  by  states,  the 
representation  from  each  state  having  one  vote;  a 
quorum  for  this  purpose  shall  consist  of  a  member  or 
members  from  two-thirds  of  the  states,  and  a  majority 
of  all  the  states  shall  be  necessary  to  a  choice.  And  if 
the  House  of  Representatives  shall  not  choose  a  Presi- 
dent whenever  the  right  of  choice  shall  devolve  upon 
them,  before  the  fourth  day  of  March  next  following, 
then  the  Vice-President  shall  act  as  President,  as  in  the 
case  of  the  death  or  other  constitutional  disability  of 
the  President.  The  person  having  the  greatest  number 
of  votes  as  Vice-President,  shall  be  the  Vice-President, 
if  such  number  be  a  majority  of  the  whole  number  of 
Electors  appointed,  and  if  no  person  have  a  majority, 
then  from  the  two  highest  numbers  on  the  list,  the  Sen- 


23  Text  of  the  Constitution. 

ate  shall  choose  the  Vice-President;  a  quorum  for  the 
purpose  shall  consist  of  two-thirds  of  the  whole  number 
of  Senators,  and  a  majority  of  the  whole  number  shall 
be  necessary  to  a  choice.  But  no  person  constitution- 
ally ineligible  to  the  office  of  President  shall  be  eligible 
to  that  of  Vice-President  of  the  United  States. 


i 

r 

N 


AKTICLE  XIII. 

Section  1.  Neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servi- 
tude,  except  as  a  punishment  for  crime  whereof  the 
party  shall  have  been  duly  convicted,  shall  exist  within 
the  United  States,  or  any  place  subject  to  their  jurisdic- 
tion. 

Section  2.  Congress  shall  have  power  to  enforce 
this  article  by  appropriate  legislation. 

ARTICLE  XIYyt 


\> 


Section  1.  All  persons  born  or  naturalized  in  the 
United  States,  and  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  thereof, 
are  citizens  of  the  United  States  and  of  the  State 
wherein  they  reside.  No  State  shall  make  or  enforce 
any  law  which  shall  abridge  the  privileges  or  immuni- 
ties of  citizens  of  the  United  States ;  nor  shall  any  State 
deprive  any  person  of  life,  liberty,  or  property,  without 
due  process  of  law;  nor  deny  to  any  person  within  its 
jurisdiction  the  equal  protection  of  the  laws. 

Section  2.  Representatives  shall  be  apportioned 
among  the  several  States  according  to  their  respective 
numbers,  counting  the  whole  number  of  persons  in  each 
State,  excluding  Indians  not  taxed.  But  when  the 
right  to  vote  at  any  election  for  the  choice  of  electors 
for  President  and  Vice  President  of  the  United  States, 
Representatives  in  Congress,  the  Executive  and  Judicial 


Text  of  the  Constitution.  24 

officers  of  a  State,  or  the  members  of  the  Legislature 
thereof,  is  denied  to  any  of  the  male  inhabitants  of 
such  State,  being  twenty-one  years  of  age,  and  citizens 
of  the  United  States,  or  in  any  way  abridged,  except  for 
participation  in  rebellion,  or  other  crime,  the  basis  of 
representation  therein  shall  be  reduced  in  the  propor- 
tion which  the  number  of  such  male  citizens  shall  bear 
to  the  whole  number  of  male  citizens  twenty-one  years 
of  age  in  such  State. 

Section  3.  No  person  shall  be  a  Senator  or  Repre- 
sentative in  Congress,  or  elector  of  President  and  Vice 
President,  or  hold  any  office,  civil  or  military,  under  the 
United  States,  or  under  any  State,  who,  having  pre- 
viously taken  an  oath,  as  a  member  of  Congress,  or  as 
an  officer  of  the  United  States,  or  as  a  member  of  any 
State  legislature,  or  as  an  executive  or  judicial  officer 
of  any  State,  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  shall  have  engaged  in  insurrection  or  rebellion 
against  the  same,  or  given  aid  or  comfort  to  the  enemies 
thereof.  But  Congress  may  by  a  vote  of  two-thirds 
of  each  House,  remove  such  disability. 

Section  4.  The  validity  of  the  public  debt  of  the 
United  States,  authorized  by  law,  including  debts  in- 
curred for  payment  of  pensions  and  bounties  for  ser- 
vices in  suppressing  insurrection  or  rebellion,  shall  not 
be  questioned.  But  neither  the  United  States  nor  any 
State  shall  assume  or  pay  any  debt  or  obligation  in- 
curred in  aid  of  insurrection  or  rebellion  against  the 
United  States,  or  any  claim  for  the  loss  or  emancipa- 
tion of  any  slave;  but  all  such  debts,  obligations  and 
claims  shall  be  held  illegal  and  void. 

Section  5.  The  Congress  shall  have  power  to  en- 
force, by  appropriate  legislation,  the  provisions  of  this 
article. 


25  Text  of  the  Constitution. 

ARTICLE  XV. 

Section  1.  The  right  of  citizens  of  the  United  States 
to  vote  shall  not  be  denied  or  abridged  by  the  United 
States  or  by  any  State  on  account  of  race,  color,  or  pre- 
vious condition  of  servitude. 

Section  2.  The  Congress  shall  have  power  to  enforce 
this  article  by  appropriate  legislation. 


INTRODUCTORY. 


Constitutional  Construction — General  Rules. 

Broadly  speaking,  a  constitution  is  an  instrument  of  govern- 
ment made  and  adopted  by  the  people  for  practical  purposes.1 
The  constitution  of  the  United  States  is  a  grant  of  power.2  It 
should  be  construed  so  as  best  to  subserve  the  great  objects  for 
which  it  was  made,3  and,  like  every  other  grant  of  power, 
should  have  a  reasonable  construction  according  to  its  terms,4 
as  defined  in  the  vocabulary  of  the  people  which  adopted  it.5 
The  safest  rule  for  interpreting  the  constitution  is  to  look  to 
the  nature  and  objects  of  the  particular  powers,  duties  and  rights, 
with  all  the  aids  of  contemporary  history,  and  to  give  to  the 
words  of  each  just  such  operation  and  force  consistent  with 
their  legitimate  meaning,  as  may  fairly  secure  and  attain  the 
ends  proposed.6  The  very  object  of  constitutional  construc- 
tion is  to  give  effect  to  the  intention  of  the  framers  of  the  in- 
strument, and  to  the  intent  of  the  people  in  adopting  it,7  and 
this  intent,  together  with  the  general  scope  of  the  particular 
provision,  is  to  be  kept  constantly  in  view.8 

1  Metropolitan  Bank  v.  Van  Dyck,  27  N.  Y.  400. 

2  Spooner  v.  McConnell,  1  McLean,  337,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,245; 
United  States  v.  Cathcart,  1  Bond,  556,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,756; 
Page  v.  Allen,  58  Pa.  St.  338,  98  Am.  Dee.  272;  State  v.  Moore,  40 
Neb.  854,  59  N.  W.  755,  25  L.  R.  A.  774. 

3  Jarrolt  v.  Moberly,  103  U.  S.  586,  26  L.  ed.  492;  North  Eiver 
S.  Co.  v.  Livingston,  3  Cow.  713;  Hague  v.  Powers,  39  Barb.  427; 
Metropolitan  Bank  v.  Van  Dyck,  27  N.  Y.  400. 

4  Martin  v.  Hunter,  1  Wheat.  326,  4  L.  ed.  97;  Woodson  v.  Mur- 
dock,  22  Wall.  369,  22  L.  ed.  716;  Fairbank  v.  United  States,  181 
U.  S.  289,  21  S.  Ct.  648,  45  L.  ed.  862. 

5  Kunzler  v.  Kohaus,  5  Hill,  317;  Padelford  v.  Mayor,  14  Ga.  438. 

6  Prigg  v.  Commonwealth,  16  Pet.  610,  10  L.  ed.  1060. 

7  Lake  County  v.  Rollins,  130  U.  S.  670,  9  S.  Ct.  651,  32  L.  ed. 
1060. 

s  Gibbons  v.  Ogden,  9  Wheat.  188,  6  L.  ed.  23;  Ogden  v.  Saunders, 
12  Wheat.  332,  6  L.  ed.  606;  Brown  v.  Maryland,  12  Wheat.  437,  6 

(27) 


Constitutional  Construction.  28 

No  court  is  authorized  to  so  construe  a  clause  of  the  constitu- 
tion as  to  defeat  its  obvious  ends,  when  another  construction, 
equally  accordant  with  the  words  and  sense,  will  enforce  and 
protect  those  ends  ;9  accordingly,  where  words  admit  of  different 
intendments,  that  must  be  selected  which  is  most  consonant  to 
the  object  in  view.10  If  a  case  is  within  the  letter  of  the  con- 
stitution it  is  not  to  be  excluded  from  its  meaning  by  showing 
that  it  was  not  in  the  minds  of  those  who  framed  and  adopted 
it ;  it  is  further  necessary  to  show  that,  had  the  case  been  sug- 
gested, the  language  would  have  been  changed  so  as  to  except 
it.11  It  must  receive  a  practical  construction,12  and  is  not  to 
be  viewed  technically.13  Its  terms  are  not  to  he  nullified  or 
evaded  by  astute  verbal  criticism  without  regard  to  the  aim  and 
objects  of  the  instrument  and  the  principles  on  which  it  was 
based.14  It  should  be  so  construed  as  to  give  effect  to  its  dif- 
ferent clauses,  as  far  as  possible  to  reconcile  them  and  not 
allow  their  seeming  repugnancy  to  destroy  them.15 

The  rule  of  construction  that  what  is  implied  is  as  much  a 
part  of  an  instrument  as  what  is  expressed,  applies  to  the  fed- 
eral constitution,  because  of  the  inherent  inability  to  put  into 
words  all  derivative  powers;16  but  a  court  has  no  right  to  in- 
sert anything  in  the  constitution  which  is  not  expressed  and 
cannot  fairly  be  implied,17  and  when  the  text  of  a  constitutional 
provision  is  not  ambiguous,  the  courts    are    not  at  liberty  to 

L.  ed.  678;  McCulloch  v.  Maryland,  4  Wheat.  415,  4  L.  ed.  579; 
Groves  v.  Slaughter,  15  Pet.  500,  10  L.  ed.  800;  Ex  parte  Verger,  8 
Wall.  101,  19  L.  ed.  332;  Lake  County  v.  Rollins,  130  U.  S.  670,  9  S. 
Ct.  651,  32  L.  ed.  1060. 

9  Prigg  v.  Commonwealth,  16  Pet.  612,  10  L.  ed.  1060. 

10  Aldrich  v.  Kinney,  4  Conn.  380,  10  Am.  Dec.  151. 

li  Trustees  Dartmouth  College  v.  Woodward,  4  Wheat.  644,  4 
L.   ed.   629. 

12  Railroad  Co.  v.  Peniston,  18  Wall.  31,  21  L.  ed.  787. 

13  People  v.  Dawell,  25  Mich.  247,  12  Am.  Rep.  260;  Dormon  v. 
State,  34  Ala.  216. 

14  Passenger  Cases,  7  How.  283,  12  L.  ed.  702. 

15  Cohens  v.  Virginia,  6  Wheat.  395,  5  L.  ed.  257;  Marbury  v.  Madi- 
son, 1  Cr.  138,  2  L.  ed.  60. 

16  Ex  parte  Yarbrough,  110  U.  S.  658,  4  S.  Ct.  152,  28  L.  ed.  274. 

17  Prigg  v.  Common  wealth,  16  Pet.  613,  10  L.  ed.  1060. 


29  Constitutional  Consteuction. 

search  for  its  meaning  beyond  the  instrument  itself.1 8  Affirma- 
tive words  often  imply  a  negative  of  other  objects  than  those 
affirmed,19  and  an  exception  of  any  particular  case  presupposes 
that  those  which  are  not  excepted  are  embraced  within  the  grant 
or  prohibition;  so  where  no  exception  is  made  in  terms,  none 
will  be  made  by  implication  or  construction.20 

The  scope  and  effect  of  a  constitutional  provision  is  often 
best  ascertained  by  bearing  in  mind  what  the  law  was  before,21 
and  a  provision  afterward  changed  by  amendment  should  be 
considered  in  construing  the  amendment.22  The  history  of  the 
time  when  a  provision  was  framed  and  adopted  should  be  ex- 
amined to  determine  the  old  law,  the  mischief  and  the  remedy,23 
and  where  it  is  undoubted  that  the  object  of  a  clause  was  to  in- 
corporate into  the  instrument  certain  principles  which  had  be- 
come permanently  fixed  in  the  law  of  the  mother  country,  the  con- 
struction of  those  principles  by  the  English  courts  is  useful  in 
determining  their  scope.24  The  construction  of  many  clauses  of 
the  constitution  must  be  had  in  the  light  of  the  common  law,25 
unless  by  a  series  of  decisions  by  the  supreme  court  and  the 
construction  placed  upon  a  particular  clause  by  Congress  the 
words  have  been  considered  as  having  a  meaning  different  from 
that  given  to  them  by  the  common  law.26 

Decisions  deliberately  considering  a  constitutional  provision 
should  be  looked  to,27  and  contemporary  practical  construction 
of  the  constitution  by  Congress  and  persons  intrusted  with  its 

is  Lake  County  v.  Eollins,  130  U.  S.  670,  9  S.  Ct.  651,  32  L.  ed. 
1060. 

19  Marbury  v.  Madison,  1  Cr.  173,  2  L.  ed.  60. 

20  Ehode  Island  v.  Massachusetts,  12  Pet.  722,  9  L.  ed.  1233. 

21  Ex  parte  Wilson,  114  U.  S.  422,  5  S.  Ct.  935,  29  L.  ed.  80 j 
Mattox  v.  United  States,  156  U.  S.  243,  15  S.  Ct.  337,  39  L.  ed.  409. 

22  Fletcher  v.  Peck,  6  Cr.  139,  3  L.  ed.  162. 

23  Ehode  Island  v.  Massachusetts,  12  Pet.  723,  9  L.  ed.  1233; 
Craig  v.  Missouri,  4  Pet.  432,  7  L.  ed.  903;  Missouri  v.  Illinois,  180 
U.  S.  219,  21  S.  Ct.  331,  45  L.  ed.  497. 

24  Brown  v.  Walker,  161  U.  S.  591,  16  S.  Ct.  644,  40  L.  ed.  819. 

25  United  States  v.  Wong  Kim  Ark,  169  U.  S.  654,  18  S.  Ct.  456, 
42  L.  ed.  890. 

2G   The  Huntress,  2  Ware  (Dav.  82),  89,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6914. 

27   Missouri  v.  Illinois,  180  U.  S.  219,  21  S.  Ct.  331,  45  L.  ed.  497. 


Constitutional  Construction.  30 

execution  is  of  great  weight  in  construing  its  provisions,28  es- 
pecially where  there  has  been  long  acquiescence  in  such  con- 
struction, and  rights  have  been  acquired  in  reliance  thereon.29 
It  is  only  in  cases  of  doubt  and  ambiguity,  however,  that  this 
weight  attaches  to  practical  construction  of  constitutional  pro- 
visions.30 But  the  fact  that  practical  construction,  long  con- 
tinued, has  been  uniformly  abandoned  does  not  detract  from 
its  value  as  an  aid  to  judicial  construction.31 

The  arguments  of  individual  legislators  cannot  dictate  the 
construction  to  be  put  on  the  constitution  by  the  courts,32  nor 
can  congressional  debates  with  reference  to  a  proposed  consti- 
tutional amendment  furnish  any  firm  ground  for  its  proper  con- 
struction.33 

The  courts  can  only  construe  the  powers  granted;  they  can- 
not inquire  into  the  policy  or  principles  which  induced  a 
grant,34  nor  can  the  question  of  expediency  or  hardship  deter- 
mine the  construction  of  a  constitutional  provision.35 

28  Cohens  v.  Virginia,  6  Wheat.  420,  5  L.  ed.  257;  Ogden  v. 
Saunders,  12  Wheat.  290,  6  L.  ed.  606;  Wilkinson  v.  Leland,  2  Pet. 
657,  7  L.  ed.  542;  Cooley  v.  Board  of  Wardens,  12  How.  315,  13  L. 
ed.  996;  Den  v.  Hoboken  Land  etc.  Co.,  18  How.  280,  15  L.  ed.  372; 
Propeller  Genessee  Chief  v.  Fitzhugh,  12  How.  458,  13  L.  ed.  1058. 

29  MoCulloch  v.  Maryland,  4  Wheat.  401,  4  L.  ed.  579;  Veazie 
Bank  v.  Fenno,  8  Wall.  541,  19  L.  ed.  482;  Burrow  etc.  Lith.  Co.  v. 
Sarony,  111  U.  S.  57,  4  S.  Ct.  279,  28  L.  ed.  349;  The  Laura,  114  U.  S. 
416,  5  S.  Ct.  881,  29  L.  ed.  147;  Field  v.  Clark,  143  U.  S.  691,  12  S.  Ct. 
495,  36  L.  ed.  294. 

30  McPherson  v.  Blacker,  146  U.  S.  27,  13  S.  Ct.  1,  36  L.  ed.  869; 
Fairbank  v.  United  States,  181  U.  S.  310,  21  S.  Ct.  648,  45  L.  ed. 
862. 

31  McPherson  v.  Blacker,  146  U.  S.  27,  13  S.  Ct.  1,  36  L.  ed.  869. 

32  Downs  v.  Bidwell,  182  TJ.  S.  254,  21  S.  Ct.  770,  45  L.  ed.  1088. 

33  Maxwell  v.  Dow,  176  U.  S.  601,  20  S.  Ct.  448,  44  L.  ed.  597. 

34  Martin  v.  Hunter,  1  Wheat.  304,  4  L.  ed.  97. 

35  Watkins  v.  Holman,  16  Pet.  62,  10  L.  ed.  873;  Legal  Tender 
Cases,  12  Wall.  540,  20  L.  ed.  287;  Buchanan  v.  Litchfield,  102  U.  S. 
293,  26  L.  ed.  138;  The  Benito  Estenger,  176  TJ.  S.  575,  20  S.  Ct. 
489,  44  L,  ed.  592;  Louisville  etc.  By.  v.  Kentucky,  183  U.  S.  512, 
22  S.  Ct.  95,  46  L.  ed.  298. 


31  Constitutional  Construction. 


Meaning  of  Words. 


In  construing  the  constitution,  the  intention  of  the  instru- 
ment is  to  prevail,  and  this  intention  is  to  be  collected  chiefly 
from  its  words  understood  in  their  ordinary  sense;36  reference 
is  to  be  had  to  the  literal  meaning  of  the  words  to  be  expounded, 
their  connection  with  other  words,  and  the  general  objects  to 
be  accomplished.37  Although  the  spirit  of  an  instrument  is 
to  be  respected  not  less  than  its  letter,  yet,  as  has  been  said,  the 
spirit  is  to  be  collected  chiefly  from  its  words;  it  cannot  be 
inferred  from  extrinsic  circumstances  that  a  case  for  which  the 
words  expressly  provide  shall  be  exempted  from  its  operation.38 
The  argument  of  inconvenience  cannot  prevail  over  plain  words, 
but  a  construction  which  would  necessarily  occasion  public  or 
private  mischief  must  yield  to  a  construction  which  will  occa- 
sion neither.39  A  case  within  the  words  of  a  rule  must  be 
deemed  within  its  operation  unless  something  in  the  literal  con- 
struction is  so  obviously  absurd  or  mischievous,  or  so  repugnant 
to  the  spirit  of  the  instrument  as  to  justify  an  exception.40 

Words  are  to  be  taken  in  their  natural  and  obvious  sense,  and 
not  in  a  sense  unreasonably  restricted  or  enlarged.41  Adherence 
to  the  letter  must  not  be  had  in  opposition  to  the  reason  and 
spirit  of  the  constitution,  and  to  effectuate  the  objects  intended, 
it  may  be  proper  to  deviate  from  the  usual  sense  of  the  words.42 
Every  word  must  have  its  due  force  and  appropriate  meaning, 

36  Ogden  v.  Saunders,  12  Wheat.  332,  6  L.  ed.  606;  Gibbons  v. 
Ogden,  9  Wheat.  188,  6  L.  ed.  23. 

37  Brown  v.  Maryland,  12  Wheat.  437,  6  L.  ed.  678;  Miller  v.  Dunn, 
72  Cal.  462,  1  Am.  St.  Eep.  67,  14  Pac.  27. 

3S  Sturges  v.  Crowninshield,  4  Wheat.  202,  4  L.  ed.  529;  Cohens  v. 
Virginia,  6  Wheat.  380,  5  L.  ed.  257. 

39  Ex  parte  Griffin,  Chase,  364,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5815;  Baltimore  v. 
State,  15  Md.  376. 

40  Martin  v.  Hunter,  1  Wheat.  304,  4  L.  ed.  97;  McCulloch  v. 
Maryland,  4  Wheat.  316,  4  L.  ed.  579;  Houston  v.  Moore,  5  Wheat. 
1,  5  L.  ed.  19;  Briscoe  v.  Bank  of  Kentucky,  11  Pet.  257,  9  L.  ed. 
709;  Cooley  v.  Board  of  Wardens,  12  How.  299,  13  L.  ed.  996. 

41  Martin  v.  Hunter,  1  Wheat.  304,  4  L.  ed.  97;  Miller  v.  Dunn,  72 
Cal.  462,  1  Am.  St.  Eep.  67,  14  Pac.  27. 

42  Aldrich  v.  Kinney,  4  Conn.  380,  10  Am.  Dec.  151. 


Constitutional  Construction.  32 

and  no  word  should  be  rejected  as  unmeaning;43  and  care 
should  be  taken  to  reconcile  words  apparently  inconsistent,  in 
such  a  manner  as  to  give,  if  possible,  a  meaning  to  even  word  :' ' 
il  cannot  be  assumed  that  any  part  of  the  language  used  is  su- 
perfluous.45 The  same  words  have  not  necessarily  the  same 
meaning  when  found  in  different  parts  of  the  constitution,  and 
the  peculiar  sense  in  which  a  word  is  used  is  to  be  determined 
by  the  context,46  unless  the  meaning  is  completely  ascer- 
tained.47 Where  it  appears  that  the  framers  used  a  word  in 
a  particular  sense  generally  throughout  the  instrument,  it  will 
be  given  that  sense  wherever  it  occurs.48  "While  affirmative 
words  are  often  negative  of  other  objects  than  those  affirmed, 
they  should  not  be  construed  negatively  where  they  can  operate 
fully  without  such  construction.49 

Operation  of  Constitution. 


The  United  States  constitution  is  supreme  over  all  the  depart- 
ments of  the  national  government,  and,  to  the  extent  of  the 
powers  delegated,  over  all  who  made  themselves  parties  to  it, 
states  as  well  as  persons;  it  is  supreme  over  the  people  of  the 
United  States  aggregately  and  in  their  separate  sovereignties.50 
It  constitutes  a  part  of  the  law  of  each  state,  and  is  binding 
upon  the  people  and  authorities  of  the  state.51 

A  constitution  will  always  be  deemed  to  operate  prospectively 

43  Holmes  v.  Jennison,  14  Pet.  540,  10  L.  ed.  579;  Hitchcock  v. 
Aiken,  1  Caines,  460;  State  v.  Scott,  9  Ark.  270. 

44  Curtis  v.  Gibbs,  2  N.  J.  L.  405. 

45  Hurtado  v.  California,  110  U.  S.  534,  4  S.  Ct.  Ill,  292,  28  L. 
ed.  232. 

46  Cherokee  Nation  v.  Georgia,  5  Pet.  1,  8  L.  ed.  25;  Wheaton  v. 
Peters,  8  Pet.  591,  8  L.  ed.  1055;  Brown  v.  Maryland,  12  Wheat. 
437,  6  L.  ed.  678. 

47  United  States  v.  Burr,  2  Whart.  Cr.  Cas.  573. 

48  Green  v.  Weller,  32  Miss.  652. 

49  Marbury  v.  Madison,  1  Cr.  173,  2  L.  ed.  60;  Cohens  v.  Vir- 
ginia, 6  Wheat.  395,  5  L.  ed.  257. 

50  Dodge  v.  Woolsey,  18  How.  347,  15  L.  ed.  401. 

51  National  Bank  v.  Dearing,  91  U.  S.  35,  23  L.  ed.  196;  State  v. 
Conlon,  65  Conn.  478,  48  Am.  St.  Rep.  227,  33  Atl.  519,  31  L.  K.  A. 
55. 


33  Constitutional  Construction. 

unless  a  contrary  intention  clearly  appears.52  A  constitutional 
provision  which  is  complete  in  itself  is  self-executing.53  The 
general  principles  of  the  constitution  are  merely  declaratory  and 
directory,  and  not  meant  to  fetter  and  control.54 

52  Shreveport  v.  Cole,  129  IT.  S.  43;  9  S.  Ct.  210,  32  L.  ed.  589. 

53  Davis  v.  Burke,  179  IT.  S.  403,  21  S.  Ct.  210,  45  L.  ed.  249. 

54  Cooper  v.  Telfair,  4  Dall.  18,  1  L.  ed.  721. 

Notes  on  Constitution — 3 


PREAMBLE. 


We,  the  people  of  the  United  States,  in  order  to  form 
a  more  perfect  union,  establish  justice,  insure  domestic 
tranquility,  provide  for  the  common  defense,  promote 
the  general  welfare,  and  secure  the  blessings  of  liberty 
to  ourselves  and  our  posterity,  do  ordain  and  establish 
this  Constitution  for  the  United  States  of  America. 

The  People  of  the  United  States. 

This  phrase  contemplates  the  body  of  electors  composing  the 
states,1  the  terms  "people"  and  "citizens"  being  synonymous. 
and  both  describing  the  political  body  who,  under  our  repub- 
lican institutions,  form  the  sovereignty,  hold  the  power,  and 
conduct  the  government  through  their  representatives;  the 
"sovereign  people,"  of  which  every  citizen  is  a  constituent  mem- 
ber.2 Negroes,  whether  free  or  slaves,  were  not  included  in  the 
term  "people  of  the  United  States."3 

The  constitution  was  OTdained  and  established,  not  by  thet 
states,  but  by  the  people  of  the  United  States  ;4  the  people  bear 
the  sovereignty  of  the  nation.5  The  United  States  government 
is  truly  a  government  of  the  people;  in  form  and  substance  it 
emanates  from  them.6  It  was  competent  for  them  to  invest 
that  government  with  all  the  powers  they  might  deem  proper, 
and  to  give  it  supreme  authority,7  and  they  may  resume  or  mod- 
ify the  powers  granted  at  their  pleasure.8 

1  Penhallow  v.  Doane,  3  Dall.  93,  1  L.  ed.  507. 

2  Dred  Scott  v.  Sandford,  19  How.  404,  15  L.  ed.  691. 

3  Dred  Scott  v.  Sandford,  19  How.  404,  406,  411-427,  477,  15  L. 
ed.  691. 

4  Martin  v.  Hunter,  1  Wheat.  324,  4  L.  ed.  97. 

5  Chisholm  v.  Georgia,  2  Dall.  471,  1  L.  ed.  440. 

6  McCulloch  v.  Maryland,  4  Wheat.  316,  4  L.  ed.  579. 

7  Martin  v.  Hunter,  1  Wheat.  325,  4  L.  ed.  97. 

8  MeCulloch  v.  Maryland,  4  Wheat.  404,  4  L.  ed.  579. 

(35) 


Preamble.  36 

More  Perfect  Union. 

The  people,  through  the  constitution,  established  a  more  per- 
fect union  by  establishing  a  national  government  acting  di- 
rectly upon  the  citizens,  in  the  place  of  the  government  exist- 
ing under  the  Articles  of  Confederation,  which  acted  with  pow- 
ers greatly  restricted  and  only  on  the  states.9  The  phrase  rec- 
ognizes a  political  body  known  as  the  United  States.10  This 
union  of  the  states  is  not  a  purely  arbitrary  and  artificial  rela- 
tion; it  began  among  the  colonies,  and  received  definite  form 
and  character  and  sanction  from  the  Articles  of  Confederation, 
and  was  only  perfected  by  the  constitution.11  The  Articles  of 
Confederation  merely  constituted  a  league  of  friendship,  andi 
did  not  form  a  constitution  or  ordinance  of  government.12 

It  is  the  union  of  the  states  under  a  common  constitution 
which  forms  the  distinct  and  greater  political  unit  designated 
as  the  United  States,13  by  a  compact  made  by  the  people  of  the 
United  States  to  govern  themselves  as  to  general  objects  in  a 
certain  manner;14  a  government  emanating  from  the  people,15 
the  creation  of  their  will  and  existing  only  by  their  will.16  For 
many  purposes  it  is  a  consolidated  government,  a  nation;17  a 
body  politic  and  corporate,18  and  for  all  these  purposes  it  is 

9  Lane  County  v.  Oregon,  7  Wall.  76,  19  L.  ed.  101;  Collector  v. 
Day,  11  Wall.  125,  20  L.  ed.  122. 

10  Texas  v.  White,  7  Wall.  727,  19  L.  ed.  227. 
li   Texas  v.  White,  7  Wall.  727,  19  L.  ed.  227. 

12  Wharton  v.  Wise,  153  U.  S.  167,  14  S.  Ct.  783,  38  L.  ed.  669. 

13  Texas  v.  White,  7  Wall.  721,  19  L.  ed.  227. 

14  Chisholm  v.  Georgia,  2  Dall.  463.  1  L.  ed.  440. 

15  McCulloch  v.  Maryland,  4  Wheat.  316,     4  L.  ed.  579. 

16  Cohens  v.  Virginia,  6  Wheat.  264,  5  L.  ed.  257. 

17  Cohens  v.  Virginia,  6  Wheat.  413,  5  L.  ed.  257;  North  Eiver  S. 
Co.    v.    Livingston,    3    Cow.    713. 

18  Dugan  v.  United  States,  3  Wheat.  172,  4  L.  ed.  362;  United 
States  v.  Tingey,  5  Pet.  128,  8  L.  ed.  66;  United  States  v.  Bradley, 
10  Pet.  343,  9  L.  ed.  448;  Neilson  v.  Lagow,  12  How.  108,  13  L.  ed.  909; 
Dixon  v.  United  States,  1  Brock.  177,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3934;  United 
States  v.  Maurice,  2  Brock.  109,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,747;  United  States 
v.  Lane,  3  McLean,  365,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1559;  Stearns  v.  United  States, 
2  Paine,  301,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,341.  See,  also,  Kepublie  of  Honduras 
v.  Soto,  112  N.  Y.  310,  8  Am.  St.  Eep.  744,  19  N.  E.  845,  2  L.  E.  A. 
042. 


37  Pee  amble. 

supreme.19  It  is  a  government  of  delegated  powers  only,  with 
powers  limited  in  number  but  not  in  degree,  and  is  supreme 
within  the  scope  of  its  delegated  powers.20 

Ordained  and  Established. 

The  constitution  was  ordained  and  established  by  the  people, 
for  themselves  and  their  own  government,  and  not  for  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  individual  states.21  It  was  not  established  by 
the  states,  but  by  the  people  of  the  United  States,22  acting 
through  delegates  by  whom  they  were  represented.23  The  adop- 
tion of  the  constitution  was  neither  by  the  people  nor  the  states ; 
the  vote  of  the  people  was  limited  to  the  respective  states  in 
which  they  resided,  thus  combining  an  expression  of  popular 
suffrage  and  state  sanction.24 

The  constitution  went  into  effect  on  the  first  Wednesday  in 
March,  1789.25 

19  Cohens  v.  Virginia,  6  Wheat.  413,  5  L.  ed.  257;  Lane  County  v. 
Oregon,  7  Wall.  76,  19  L.  ed.  101;  Chinese  Exclusion  Case,  130 
U.  S.  604,  9  S.  Ct.  623,  32  L.  ed.  1068;  In  re  Quarles,  158  U.  S.  535, 
15  S.  Ct.  959,  39  L.  ed.  1080. 

20  Martin  v.  Hunter,  1  Wheat.  363,  4  L.  ed.  97;  McCulloch  v. 
Maryland,  4  Wheat.  316,  4  L  ed.  579;  Dobbins  v.  Commissioners  of 
Erie  County,  16  Pet.  447,  10  L.  ed.  1022;  Ableman  v.  Booth,  21  How. 
517,  16  L.  ed.  169;  Legal  Tender  Cases,  12  Wall.  533,  20  L.  ed.  287; 
Kohl  v.  United  States,  91  U.  S.  372,  23  L.  ed.  449;  United  States  v. 
Cruikshank,  92  U.  S.  550,  23  L.  ed.  588;  In  re  Debs,  158  U.  S.  578,  15 
S.  Ct.  900,  39  L.  ed.  1092. 

21  Barron  v.  Baltimore,  7  Pet.  243,  8  L.  ed.  672;  Withers  v.  Buck- 
ley, 20  How.  84,  15  L.  ed.  816;  Twitchell  v.  Commonwealth,  7  Wall. 
326,  19  L.  ed.  223;  United  States  v.  Cruikshank,  92  U.  S.  550,  23 
L.  ed.  588. 

22  Chisholm  v.  Georgia,  2  Dall.  463,  1  L.  ed.  440;  Martin  v.  Hunter, 

1  Wheat.  324,  4  L.  ed.  97. 

23  Worcester  v.  Georgia,  6  Pet.  569,  8  L.  ed.  483;  Barron  v.  Balti- 
more, 7  Pet.  243,  8  L.  ed.  672. 

24  Ware  v.  Hylton,  3  Dall.  199,  1  L.  ed.  568;  Chisholm  v.  Georgia, 

2  Dall.  419,  1  L.  ed.  440;  Worcester  v.  Georgia,  6  Pet.  569,  8  L.  ed. 
483. 

26  Owings  v.  Speed,  5  Wheat.  420,  5  L.  ed.  124. 


Art.  I,  §  1  Legislative  Department.  38 


ARTICLE  I. 

LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

SECTION  1. 

legislative  power,  congress. 

All  legislative  powers  herein  granted  shall  be  vested 
in  a  Congress  of  the  United  States,  which  shall  consist 
of  a  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives. 

The  "legislative  power"  means  the  power  or  authority,  under 
the  constitution,  or  frame  of  government,  to  make,  alter  or  re- 
peal laws.1  The  three  co-OTdinate  branches  of  the  federal  gov- 
ernment possess  powers,  in  their  respective  spheres,  coextensive 
with  each  other,2  but  these  powers,  while  coextensive,  are  dis- 
tinct and  independent,3  and  one  branch  of  government  cannot 
encroach  upon  the  powers  confided  to  another.4 

No  judicial  power  is  vested  in  Congress  by  the  constitution,, 
save  in  cases  specially  enumerated;5  its  powers  are  confined  to 
legislative  duties,  and  restricted  within  certain  prescribed  lim- 
its.6 

1  O'Neil  v.  American  etc.  Ins.  Co.,  166  Pa.  St.  72,  45  Am.  St.  Eep. 
650,  30  Atl.  943,  26  L.  E.  A.  715. 

2  Worcester  v.  Georgia,  6  Pet.  570,  8  L.  ed.  482. 

3  Sinking  Fund  Cases,  99  U.  S.  718,  25  L.  ed.  504. 

4  Hayburn's  Case,  3  Dall.  409,  note,  1  L.  ed.  436;  Kilbourn  v. 
Thompson,  103  U.  S.  168,  26  L.  ed.  377. 

5  Kilbourn  v.  Thompson,  103  U.  S.  168,  26  L.  ed.  377. 

6  Gordon  v.  United  States,  117  U.  S.  705. 


3d  House  of  ^Representatives.    Art.  I,  §  2,  CI.  1 


SECTION  2. 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES. 

1.  Members,  when  and  by  whom  chosen. 

2.  Qualifications. 

3.  Apportionment  of  Eepresentatives,  and  direct  taxes. 
4  Vacancies. 

5.  Speaker.     Impeachment. 

1.  The  House  of  Representatives  shall  be  composed 
of  members  chosen  every  second  year  by  the  people  of 
the  several  States,  and  the  electors  in  each  State  shall 
have  the  qualifications  requisite  for  electors  of  the  most 
numerous  branch  of  the  State  Legislature. 

Electors. 

Although  this  clause  adopts  state  qualifications  of  electors 
as  those  of  electors  for  members  of  Congress,  the  right,  thus 
ascertained,  is  not  made  dependent  upon  state  laws,  but  is  based 
upon  the  constitution.1  Accordingly,  Congress  has  power  to 
interfere  to  protect  the  right  to  vote  for  congressmen,2  and  this 
power  does  not  depend  upon  the  fourteenth  and  fifteenth  amend- 
ments.3 It  is  for  the  states  alone  to  determine  who  shall  be  en- 
titled to  vote,4  but  once  the  right  has  been  granted,  and  so  long 
a?  it  extends  to  voting  for  state  officers,  a  state  cannot  deprive 
electors  of  the  right  to  vote  at  national  elections.5  And  where 
the  possession  of  a  registry  certificate  constitutes  a  person  a 
legal  voter,  no  action  of  the  election  board  or  of  any  other  power 
can  invalidate  his  right.6 

1  Ex  parte  Yarbrough,  110  U.  S.  651,  4  S.  Ct.  152,  28  L.  ed.  274. 

2  United  States  v.  Goldman,  3  Woods,  187,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,225. 

3  United  States  v.  Crosby,  1  Hughes,  448,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,893. 

4  United  States  v.  Cruikshank,  92  U.  S.  542,  23  L.  ed.  588;  Mc- 
Pherson  v.  Blacker,  146  U.  S.  38,  13  S.  Ct.  12,  36  L.  ed.  869;  Huber 
v.  Reily,  53  Pa.  St.  112. 

5  United  States  v.  Goldman,  3  Woods,  IS 7,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,225. 

6  Bell  v.   Snydei,   Smith,   250. 


Art.  1,  §  2,  CI.  2   House  of  Kepresentatives.  40 

2.  No  person  shall  be  a  Representative  who  shall  not 
have  attained  to  the  age  of  twenty-five  years,  and  been 
seven  years  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  and  who 
shall  not,  when  elected,  be  an  inhabitant  of  that  State 
in  which  he  shall  be  chosen. 

Representatives. 

A  representative  is  a  mcfmber  of  Congress  with  full  powers.1 
The  office  of  territorial  delegate  is  not  provided  for  in  the  con- 
stitution ;  it  grew  out  of  the  ordinance  of  Congress  for  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  Northwest  Territory.2  While  delegates  are 
members  of  Congress,3  they  are  admitted  merely  as  a  matter 
of  favor,4  and  possess  only  limited  powers.5  Delegates  are  so 
far  the  mere  creatures  of  law  that  their  term  of  office  may  com- 
mence and  terminate  at  such  periods  as  Congress  may  direct,6 
and  their  qualifications  are  those  which  the  House  in  any  par- 
ticular Congress  may  choose  to  prescribe;  one  Congress  cannot 
bind  another  in  this  respect.7  If,  however,  no  qualifications 
have  been  prescribed,  they  are  to  be  deemed  the  same  as  those 
prescribed  by  the  constitution  for  members  of  the  House.8 

Qualifications  Generally. 

This  clause  fixes  the  qualifications  of  members  so  far  as  state 
action  is  concerned,  and  no  additional  qualifications  can  be  re- 
quired by  the  state.9     So  state  laws  prescribing  residence  as  to 

1  Cannon  v.  Campbell,  2  Ells.  652. 

2  Biddle  v.  Richard,  CI.  &  H.  407. 

3  Cannon  v.  Campbell,  2  Ells.  652. 

4  Ruder  v.  Whitfield,  1  Bart.  204. 

5  Cannon  v.  Campbell,  2  Ells.  652. 

6  Doty  v.  Jones,  1  Bart.  18. 

7  Cannon  v.  Campbell,  2  Ells.  604. 

8  Maxwell  v.  Cannon,  Smith,  188. 

9  Barney  v.  McCreery,  CI.  &  H.  167;  Turney  v.  Marshall  and 
Fouke  v.  Trumbull,  1  Bart.  167;  State  v.  Russell,  8  Ohio  N.  P.  54, 
10  Ohio  S.  &  C.  P.  Dee.  255. 


41  House  of  Eepresentatives.  Art.  1,  §  2,  CI.  2 

counties  within  congressional  districts  are  void;10  and  a  clause 
in  a  state  constitution  providing  that  judges  of  certain  courts 
shall  not  be  eligible  to  any  office  of  public  trust  or  profit  in  the 
state  or  the  United  States  cannot  deprive  a  member-elect  of  his 
right  to  his  seat.11 

The  negative  declaration  of  minimum  qualifications  in  this1 
clause  is  not  exclusive  of  all  others  which  may  be  required  by 
Congress  itself.12  Disloyalty  is  deemed  to  be  a  disqualifica- 
tion;13 but  the  alleged  disloyalty  must  have  been  actual  and  not 
merely  technical,14  and  acceptance  of  membership  in  a  seceding 
legislature  by  a  person  in  fact  loyal  was  held  not  to  render  a 
person  ineligible.15  Disloyal  acts  prior  to  the  complete  annex- 
ation of  Hawaii  were  declared  not  to  deprive  a  delegate-elect 
of  his  right  to  his  seat.16  The  Test  Oath  Act  of  1862  imposed 
a  real  and  substantial  disqualification  for  membership,17  and 
its  constitutionality  has  always  been  asserted.18  Polygamy  is 
a  disqualification.19  Insanity,  crime  or  loathsome  disease  would 
probably  be  held  to  disqualify  a  member-elect  should  such  a 
question  be  presented.20 

The  disqualification  of  a  member-elect  does  not  entitle  the 
next  highest  candidate  to  the  seat.21 

10  Barney  v.  McCreery,  CI.  &  H.  167. 

11  Turney  v.  Marshall  and  Fouke  v.  Trumbull,  1  Bart.  167;  Wood 
v.  Peters,  Mobley,  79. 

12  Eoberts'  Case,  Sep.  85,  56th  Cong.,  1st  Sess. 

13  McKee  v.  Young,  2  Bart.  422;  Christy  v.  Wimpy,  2  Bart.  465; 
Smith  v.  Brown,  2  Bart.  395. 

14  Tucker  v.  Booker,  2  Bart.  772. 

15  Butler's  Case,  2  Bart.  461. 

ic  Wilcox's  Case,  Kep.  3001,  56th  Cong.,  2d  Sess. 

17  Koberts'  Case,  supra. 

18  MeKee  v.  Young,  2  Bart.  450;  Smith  v.  Brown,  2  Bart.  395; 
Butler's  Case,  2  Bart.  464. 

19  Koberts'  Case,  supra;  Cannon  v.  Campbell,  2  Ells.  604. 

20  Eoberts'  Case,  supra. 

21  Smith  v.  Brown,  2  Bart.  395;  Blakey  v.  Golladay,  2  Bart.  417; 
Christy  v.  Wimpy,  2  Bart.  464;  Jones  v.  Mann,  2  Bart.  471. 


Art.  I,  §  2,  CI.  2    House  of  Representatives.  42 

Citizens. 

The  word  "citizen"  is  not  synonymous  with  "resident."22  A 
citizen  is  a  member  of  the  nation,  owing  allegiance  thereto  and 
entitled  to  protection  therefrom;23  a  member  of  the  political 
community  to  which  he  belongs.-4  A  minor  who  left  the  colo- 
nies for  Europe  for  his  education  before  the  Revolution,  and 
whose  parents  died  before  the  Revolution,  did  not  lose  his  citi- 
zenship, and  upon  his  return,  after  his  majority,  was  eligible 
to  election  to  Congress.25  Where  the  citizenship  of  a  claimant 
is  questioned,  the  leaning  should  always  be  in  his  favor.20  Tech- 
nical rules  should  not  be  applied  to  deprive  a  member  of  his 
seat  where  the  fact  of  naturalization  has  been  proved.27 

Inhabitants. 

An  inhabitant  is  a  bona  fide  member  of  the  state,  subject  to 
all  the  requisitions  of  its  laws,  and  entitled  to  all  the  privileges 
and  advantages  which  they  confer.28  "Inhabitant"  is  to  be  dis- 
tinguished from  "citizen";  the  former  comprehends  simply  lo- 
cality of  existence;  the  latter  a  combination  of  civil  privileges, 
some  of  which  may  be  enjoyed  in  any  of  the  states  of  the 
Union.29  Actual  residence  in  the  state  is  not  always  necessary 
to  constitute  a  person  an  inhabitant;  the.  capacity  in  which  a 
foreign  minister  acts  excludes  the  idea  that  he  ceases  to  be  an 
inhabitant  of  the  United  States,  and  he  must  be  deemed  to  be 
in  the  same  situation  as  to  inhabitancy  as  before  his  appoint- 
ment.30 So,  also,  a  person  having  his  place  of  business  in  Wash- 
ington, D.  C,  but  his  declared  residence  in  a  state,  where  he  re- 
sides only  a  portion  of  the  year,  is  eligible  to  election  from  that 
state.31    But  a  person  who  had  resided  in  Washington  for  years, 

22  Eobertson  v.  Cease,  97  U.  S.  64S,  24  L.  eel.  1057;   Zambrino  v. 
Galveston  etc.  By.,  38  Fed.  453;  Hewitt  v.  Story,  64  Fed.  523. 
22  Minor  v.  Happersett,  21  Wall.  166,  22  L.  ed.  627. 

24  United  States  v.  Cruiksbank,  92  U.  S.  549,  23  L.  ed.  588. 

25  Kamsay  v.  Smith,  CI.  &  H.  23. 

26  Levy's  Case,  1  Bart.  41. 

27  Lowry  v.  White,  Mobley,  623. 

28  Bailey's  Case,  CI.  &  H.  411. 

29  Bailey's  Case,  CI.  &  H.  411. 
3<»  Forsyth  's  Case,  CI.  &  H.  497. 
31  Key's  Case,  CI.  &  H.  221. 


43  House  of  Representatives.    Art.  I,  §  2,  CI.  2 


•  a 


and  went  to  his  former  home  as  secretary  to  the  military  gov- 
ernor a  few  months  before  his  election,  was  held  ineligible.32 
Voting  citizenship  is  not  essential  to  constitute  a  person  an  in- 
habitant;33 nor  does  the  acquisition  of  a  voting  citizenship  in 
another  state  render  a  person  ineligible  upon  his  return  to  his 
previous  residence  with  an  intention  to  remain  there.34 

32  Pigott's  Case,  1  Bart.  463,  464. 

33  Bailey  v.  Barbour,  2  Ells.  679. 

34  Upton's  Case,  1  Bart.  369. 


Art.  I,  §  2,  CI.  3     House  of  Eepresentatives.  44 

3.  Representatives  and  direct  taxes  shall  be  appor- 
tioned among  the  several  States  which  may  be  included 
within  this  Union,  according  to  their  respective  num- 
bers, which  shall  be  determined  by  adding  to  the  whole 
number  of  free  persons,  including  those  bound  to  service 
for  a  term  of  years,  and  excluding  Indians  not  taxed, 
three-fifths  of  all  other  persons.  The  actual  enumera- 
tion shall  be  made  within  three  years  after  the  first 
meeting  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  and 
within  every  subsequent  term  of  ten  years,  in  such  man- 
ner as  they  shall  by  law  direct.  The  number  of  Repre- 
sentatives shall  not  exceed  one  for  every  thirty  thou- 
sand, but  each  State  shall  have  at  least  one  Representa- 
tive; and  until  such  enumeration  shall  be  made,  the 
State  of  New  Hampshire  shall  be  entitled  to  choose 
three,  Massachusetts  eight,  Rhode  Island  and  Provi- 
dence Plantations  one,  Connecticut  five,  New  York  six, 
New  Jersey  four,  Pennsylvania  eight,  Delaware  one, 
Maryland  six,  Virginia  ten,  North  Carolina  five,  South 
Carolina  five,  and  Georgia  three. 

Construction. 

The  object  of  this  clause  was  to  furnish  a  basis  for  the  appor- 
tionment of  representation  and  federal  taxation;  it  does  not 
contemplate  the  exemption  of  any  state  from  its  rightful  share 
of  the  burden  or  make  taxation  dependent  upon  representation.1 
It  does  not  apply  to  the  District  of  Columbia  or  the  territories.2 

Apportionment. 

The  question  as  to  when  the  apportionment  provided  for  by 
Congress  shall  go  into  effect,  is  legislative  rather  than  judicial, 
and  courts  cannot  afford  redress  when  the  act  appears  to  be  un- 

t  Loughborough  v.  Blake,  5  Wheat.  317,  5  L.  ed.  98. 
2  Loughborough  v.  Blake,  5  Wheat.  311,  5  L.  ed.  98;  Gibbins  v. 
District  of  Columbia,  116  U.  S.  404,  6  S.  Ct.  427,  29  L.  ed.  680. 


45  House  of  Kepkesentatives.    Art.  I,  §  2,  CI.  3 

just.3  This  clause  does  not  contemplate  that  under  all  cir- 
cumstances Congress  shall  have  power  to  divide  the  states  into 
districts ;  it  merely  provides  a  means  for  the  representation  of  a 
state  when  the  state  itself  has  failed  to  make  such  provision.4 
Under  the  apportionment  of  1850,  Virginia  being  entitled  to 
eleven  representatives,  when  West  Virginia  was  admitted  Vir- 
ginia was  entitled  to  but  eight.5  The  Apportionment  Act  of 
California,  of  March  13,  1883,  is  valid.6  The  apportionment 
under  the  eighth  census  went  into  effect  March  3,  1863.7 

Direct  Taxes.* 

This  term  includes  capitation  taxes  and  direct  taxes  upon 
land,8  and  upon  personalty.* 

s  State  v.  Boyd,  36  Neb.  181,  54  N.  W.  252,  19  L.  E.  A.  227. 
i  Davison  v.  Gilbert,  Bep.  3000,  56th  Cong.,  2d  Sess. 

5  Segar's  Case,  2  Bart.  810. 

6  California  Case,  Mobley,  481. 

7  Lowe's  Case,  1  Bart.  448. 

S  Hylton  v.  United  States,  3  Dall.  171,  1  L.  ed.  556;  Scholey  v.  Eew, 
23  Wall.  331,  22  L.  ed.  99;  Springer  v.  United  States,  102  U.  S.  586, 
26  L.  ed.  253. 

9  Pollock  v.  Farmers'  Loan  etc.  Co.,  158  U.  S.  601,  15  S.  Ct.  912, 
39  L.  ed.  110S. 


See,  also,  art.  I,  §  9,  cl.  4. 


Art.  I,  §  2,  Cl.  4     House  of  Representatives.  46 

4.  When  vacancies  happen  in  the  representation 
from  any  State,  the  executive  authority  thereof  shall 
issue  writs  of  election  to  fill  such  vacancies. 

Vacancies.  How  Created. 

The  death  of  a  member  receiving  a  majority  of  the  votes  at 
any  time  after  they  were  cast  creates  a  vacancy,  whether  they 
have  been  canvassed  or  not.1  Where,  however,  a  member  died 
before  the  decision  of  a  contest  pending  against  him  and  his  suc- 
cessor was  elected  and  sworn  in  under  protest,  but  it  afterward 
appeared  that  the  contestant  had  been  elected  at  the  first  elec- 
tion, it  was  held  that  no  vacancy  had  existed.2  Eesignation  to 
the  governor  of  the  state  creates  a  vacancy.3  The  word  "hap- 
pen" as  used  in  this  clause  is  not  confined  to  unforeseen  or  for- 
tuitous events,  and  a  vacancy  may  "happen"  by  the  expiration 
of  the  term,  and  the  calling  of  an  extra  session  before  the  regu- 
lar election.4 

The  acceptance  of  a  disqualifying  office  creates  a  vacancy;5 
but  a  member  does  not  forfeit  his  right  to  his  seat  by  accepting 
an  incompatible  office,  if  he  resigns  therefrom  before  the  be- 
ginning of  the  session.6 

Elections  to  Fill. 

Upon  receipt  of  a  member's  resignation  the  governor  may 
issue  writs  of  election  without  waiting  for  a  certificate  of  the 
existence  of  the  vacancy  from  the  House.7  The  governor  may 
take  notice  of  a  vacancy  created  by  the  acceptance  of  a  disquali- 
fying office,  and  issue  writs  for  a  new  election.8  But  a  member 
with  the  governor's  certificate  cannot  take  his  seat  before  the  or- 
ganization of  the  House.9 

3   Blakey  v.  Golladay,  2  Bart.  417. 

2  Mac-key  v.  O'Connor,  2  Ells.  565. 

3  Mercer's  Case,  CI.  &  H.  44;  Edward's  Case,  CI.  &  H.  92. 

4  Gholson  and  Claiborne's  Case,  1  Bart.  9. 
r.  Van  Ness  Case,  CI.  &  H.  122. 

6  Washburn  v.  Eipley,  CI.  &  H.  682.     See,  also,  art.  T,  §  6,  cl.  2. 

7  Mercer's  Case,  Cl.  &  H.  44;   Edward's  Case,  Cl.   &  H.  9^. 

8  Baker  and  Yell's  Case,  1  Bart.  92. 
8  New  Jersey  Case,  1  Bart.  19. 


47  House  of  Kepresentatiyes.    Art.  I,  §  2,  CI.  4 

Section  76  of  the  Eevised  Statutes,  providing  for  the  filling  of 
vacancies,  has  no  application  to  the  case  of  the  election  of  the  first 
representative  to  which  any  new  state  may  be  entitled,  and  the 
first  election,  if  for  an  unexpired  term,  is  not  in  any  sense  the 
filling  of  a  vacancy.10  Congress  having  provided  that  the  time 
for  holding  elections  to  fill  vacancies  "may  be  prescribed  by  the 
laws  of  the  several  states,"  and  the  general  assembly  of  Ehode 
Island  having  provided  that  the  "general  assembly  shall  order 
a  new  election,"  such  election  may  be  called  by  resolution  of  the 
Grand  Committee;  joint  resolution  is  unnecessary.11  If  the 
legislature  has  failed  to  prescribe  the  time  for  an  election  to  fill 
a  vacancy,  the  governor  may  do  so  in  his  writs.12 

Where  the  governor  of  Mississippi  called  a  special  election  for 
representatives  to  serve  at  a  "called  session"  until  the  regular 
election,  and  the  House  admitted  them  to  serve  the  whole  term, 
upon  the  rescission  of  its  action  the  House  declared  the  seats 
vacant,  that  regular  election  did  not,  because  of  the  erroneous 
decision,  express  the  will  of  the  people.13 

lo  Patterson   v.   Belford,  1   Ells.   55. 

ii  In  re  [Representative  Election,  17  E.  I.  820,  21  Atl.  963. 

12  Ifoge's  Case,  CI.  &  H.  136. 

13  Gliolson  and   Claiborne's   Case,   1   Bart.  9. 


Art.  I,  §  2,  CI.  5     House  of  Representatives.  48 

5.  The  House  of  Representatives  shall  choose  their 
Speaker  and  other  officers;  and  shall  have  the  sole 
power  of  impeachment. 

The  House  of  Representatives  has  the  sole  power  to  impeach 
government  officers  and  the  Senate  to  try  them.1 

l  Kilbourn  v.  Thompson,  103  U.  S.  189,  190,  26  L.  ed.  377. 


49  Senate.  Art.  I,  §  3,  CI.  1 


SECTION  3. 

SENATE. 

1.  Senators. 

2.  Divided  into  classes.     Vacancies. 

3.  Qualifications. 

4.  President  of  Senate. 

5.  Other  officers. 

6.  Impeachment. 

7.  Judgment  on  impeachment. 

1.  The  Senate  of  the  United  States  shall  be  com- 
posed of  two  Senators  from  each  State,  chosen  by  the 
legislature  thereof  for  six  years ;  and  each  Senator  shall 
have  one  vote. 

State. 

A  senator  must  be  elected  from  a  state  of  the  Union ;  his  elec- 
tion before  the  admission  of  the  state  does  not  entitle  him  to  a 
seat.1  A  political  organization,  to  constitute  a  state,  must  be 
such  in  contemplation  of  the  constitution,2  and  a  state  in  the 
sense  of  the  constitution  is  a  political  community  of  free  citizens 
occupying  definite  territory  and  organized  under  a  government, 
sanctioned  and  limited  by  a  written  constitution  and  estab- 
lished by  the  consent  of  the  governed ;  the  union  of  such  states 
under  the  constitution  forms  the  United  States.3  A  state  in  re- 
bellion is  not  a  state  of  the  Union,  whose  legislature  may  right- 
fully elect  senators.4  So,  also,  after  a  rebellion  has  been  put 
down,  and  while  the  government  is  provisional,  tbere  is  no  body 
which  can  lawfully  elect  senators.5     But  the  acts  declaring  states 

i    Shield's  Case,  Taft,  187,  Rep.  of  Com. 

2  Cherokee  Nation  v.  Georgia,  5  Pet.  18,  8  L.  ed.  25. 

3  Texas  v.  White,  7  Wall.  721,  19  L.  ed.  227. 

i  Fishback  v    Baxter,  Taft,  240;  and  see  Cutler's  Case,  Taft,  248. 

5  Jones  and  Garland  v.  McDonald  and  Rice,  Taft,  282.  But  see 
Revel's  Case,  Taft,  312. 

Notes  on  Constitution — 4 


Art.  I,  §  3,  CI.  1  Senate.  50 

entitled  to  representation  in  Congress  were  held  to  relate  back 
and  validate  all  acts  done  after  reconstruction  and  to  entitle 
a  senator  elected  during  that  time  to  his  seat.6 

Legislature. 

The  question  as  to  which  of  two  rival  bodies,  claiming  to  be 
the  legislature  of  a  state  is  the  real  legislature  is  for  the  Sen- 
ate to  decide  in  a  contest  for  seats.7  It  would  seem,  however, 
that  a.  body  duly  organized,  and  whose  members  hold  certificates 
of  election,  would  be  deemed  to  be  the  "legislature"  for  the  pur- 
pose of  electing  a  senator,  and  that  a  majority  of  that  body 
would  be  sufficient.8 

"Chosen"  and  "elected"  are  synonymous  terms.9  A  senator 
elected  by  a  plurality  of  the  votes  of  the  legislature  sitting  in 
joint  convention  is  not  entitled  to  a  seat;  in  the  absence  of  any 
positive  rule  as  to  the  proportion  of  votes  necessary,  a  majority 
is  essential;10  but  the  fact  that  a  person  elected  b*y  a  majority 
of  one  was  chairman  of  the  joint  meeting  of  the  legislature,  and 
cast  the  deciding  vote,  cannot  disqualify  him.11 

6  Hart  v.  Gilbert,  Taft,  321;  Eeynolds  v.  Hamilton,  Taft,  323. 

7  Louisiana  Cases,  Taft,  426;  and  see  Sykes  v.  Spencer,  Taft,  556. 

8  Corbin  v.  Butler,  Taft,  582,  Eep.  of  Com. 

9  Norwood   v.  Blodgett,   Taft,   331. 
io  Stockton's  Case,  Taft,  264. 

li  Bateman's  Case,  Taft,  96. 


51  Senate.  Art  I,  §  3,  CI.  2 

2.  Immediately  after  they  shall  be  assembled  in  con- 
sequence of  the  first  election,  they  shall  be  divided  as 
equally  as  may  be  into  three  classes.  The  seats  of  the 
Senators  of  the  first  class  shall  be  vacated  at  the  expira- 
tion of  the  second  year,  of  the  second  class,  at  the  ex- 
piration of  the  fourth  year,  and  of  the  third  class,  at 
the  expiration  of  the  sixth  year,  so  that  one-third  may 
be  chosen  every  second  year;  and  if  vacancies  happen 
by  resignation,  or  otherwise,  during  the  recess  of  the 
legislature  of  any  State,  the  executive  thereof  may  make 
temporary  appointments  until  the  next  meeting  of  the 
legislature,  which  shall  then  fill  such  vacancies. 

Classification. 

When  senators  first  appear  from  new  states,  the  classification 
is  to  be  determined  by  lot  in  the  mode  adopted  upon  the  first 
assembling  of  the  Senate,  so  as  to  prevent  two  vacancies  occur- 
ring in  the  same  state  at  the  same  time.1  Where  by  allotment 
a  senator  from  a  new  state  is  placed  in  a  class  whose  term  ex- 
pires at  a  time  when  the  legislature  of  his  state  is  not  in  session, 
at  the  expiration  of  his  term  a  "vacancy"  exists  which  the  gov- 
ernor is  empowered  to  fill  by  reappointment  or  otherwise.2 

Vacancies. 

"By  resignation  or  otherwise"  includes  a  vacancy  created  by 
the  expiration  of  a  senator's  term,3  and  a  senator  reappointed  by 
the  governor  "until  the  next  meeting  of  the  legislature"  is  en- 
titled to  his  seat  during  a  special  session  of  Congress.4  So 
where  the  term  of  a  senator  expires  during  a  recess  of  the  leg- 
islature elected  under  an  old  state  constitution,  and  before  the 
term  of  the  legislature  elected  under  tbe  new  constitution  be- 
gins, a  vacancy  exists  which  it  is  within  the  power  of  the  legis- 

1  Senate   Journal,    May    15,    1789. 

2  Sevier's  Case,  Taft,   7. 

3  Bell's  Case,  Taft,  26. 

4  Tracey's  Case,  Taft,  3;  Smith's  Case,  Taft,  4.  But  see  Lanman's 
Case,  CI.  &  H.  871,  Taft,  5. 


Art.  I,  §  3,  CI.  2  Senate.  52 

lature  to  fill.5  A  senator  appointed  by  the  governor  after  a  ses- 
sion has  intervened  during  the  vacancy  is  not,  however,  entitled 
to  a  seat.6  Where  the  incumbent  has  presented  his  resignation 
to  take  effect  in  the  future,  and  his  successor  has  been  elected, 
the  death  of  the  former  before  the  resignation  takes  effect  cre- 
ates a  vacancy  which  the  governor  may  fill  until  that  time,  but 
the  appointee  cannot  hold  thereafter  as  against  the  person 
elected  by  the  legislature.7  The  mere  transmission  of  a  resig- 
nation to  the  governor  is  sufficient  to  create  a  vacancy;  the  de- 
lay of  the  governor's  acceptance,  in  the  hope  of  a  reconsideration, 
is  immaterial.8  The  executive  of  a  state  cannot  appoint  a  sen- 
ator to  fill  an  expected  vacancy  during  a  recess  of  the  legisla- 
ture.9 

5  Bell's  Case,  Taft,  26;  Blair's  Case,  Taft,  36. 

6  Johns'  Case,  Taft,  1.     Contra,  Phelps'  Case,  Taft,  16. 

7  Dixon's  Case,  Taft,  13. 

S  Bledsoe's  Case,  CI.  &  H.  869,  Taft,  95. 
9  Lanman's  Case,  CI.  &  H.  871,  Taft,  5. 


53  Senate.  Art.  I,  §  3,  CI.  3 

3.  No  person  shall  be  a  Senator  who  shall  not  have 
attained  to  the  age  of  thirty  years,  and  been  nine  years 
a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  and  who  shall  not,  when 
elected,  be  an  inhabitant  of  that  State  for  which  he  shall 
be  chosen. 

A  senator  must  be  a  male  citizen,1  and  must  have  been  nine 
years  a  citizen  at  the  commencement  of  his  term.2  Eesidence  is 
not  sufficient ;  citizenship  is  what  is  required,  and  notwithstand- 
ing the  period  of  residence  exceeds  nine  years,  if  actual  citizen- 
ship falls  short  of  nine  years,  a  person  is  ineligible.3  The  fact 
that  a  senator-elect  had  some  negro  blood  in  him,  and  the  ob- 
jection was  raised  that  he  was  barred  of  election  for  a  period 
of  nine  years  after  the  ratification  of  the  fourteenth  amend- 
ment, seems  not  to  have  been  seriously  considered  by  the  Sen- 
ate.4 One  who  was  a  resident  of  the  United  States  at  the  close 
of  the  Eevolutionary  war,  and  an  alien,  was  held  not  to  be 
eligible  until  the  lapse  of  nine  years  after  taking  the  oath  of 
allegiance.5 

Where  the  constitution  and  laws  of  a  state  do  not  define  resi- 
dence or  the  qualifications  necessary  to  render  a  person  an  in- 
habitant, the  certificate  of  the  governor  that  his  appointee  is 
an  inhabitant  is  sufficient.6  One  who  served  in  the  army  of  the 
United  States  in  a  state  in  insurrection,  and  was  afterward 
made  provisional  governor,  and  declared  his  intention  of  re- 
maining in  the  state  two  years  before  his  election  as  senator, 
was  an  inhabitant  within  the  meaning  of  the  constitution.7 

The  constitution  having  prescribed  the  qualifications  neces- 
sary, the  states  cannot  add  to  them,8  and  neither  the  Secretary 
of  State,  nor  the  supreme  court  of  the  state  has  any  power  to 
pass  upon  the  legality  of  a  senator's  election  or  appointment.9 

l   Gallatin's  Case,  CI.  &  H.  851. 

?  Gallatin's   Case.  CI.   &   H.   851;   Shields'   Case,   Taft,   138. 

3  Shields'  Case,  Taft,  138. 

4  Bevel's   Case,   Taft,   312. 

5  Gallatin's  Case,  CI.  &  H.  851;  Shields'  Case,  Taft,  138. 
e  Griswold's   Case,   Taft,   94. 

7  Ames'  Case,  Taft,  317. 

S  TrumbulITs  Case,  Taft,  148;  State  v.  Eussell,  8  Ohio  N.  P.  54,  10 
Ohio  S.  &  C.  P.  Dec.  255. 

9  State  v.  Crawford,  2S  Fla.  441,  10  Soutli.  118,  14  L.  E.  A.  253. 


Art.  I,  §  3,  CI.  4-7  Senate.  54 

4.  The  Vice-President  of  the  United  States  shall  be 
President  of  the  Senate,  but  shall  have  no  vote,  unless 
they  be  equally  divided. 

5.  The  Senate  shall  choose  their  other  officers,  and 
also  a  President  pro  tempore,  in  the  absence  of  the 
Vice-President,  or  when  he  shall  exercise  the  office  of 
President  of  the  United  States. 

6.  The  Senate  shall  have  the  sole  power  to  try  all 
impeachments.  When  sitting  for  that  purpose,  they 
shall  be  on  oath  or  affirmation.  When  the  President 
of  the  United  States  is  tried,  the  Chief  Justice  shall 
preside.  And  no  person  shall  be  convicted  without  the 
concurrence  of  two-thirds  of  the  members  present. 

The  House  of  Kepresentatives  has  the  sole  power  to  impeach 
government  officials,  and  the  Senate  to  try  them.1  Upon  the 
trial  of  the  President,  the  chief  justice  is  the  president  of  the 
Senate  sitting  as  a  court  of  impeachment,  and  it  is  his  duty  to 
pass  upon  questions  of  evidence  in  the  first  instance,  and 
then  to  submit  them  to  the  Senate  if  so  desired  by  a  member.2 

For  the  form  of  oath,  see  Chase's  Trial,  p.  12 ;  and  for  rules 
governing  impeachment  trials  generally,  see  William  Blount's 
Trial,  December  17,  1798,  to  January  15,  1799 ;  John  Pickering-, 
March  3,  1803— March  12,  1803;  James  H.  Peck,  App.  Legis. 
Journal  of  Senate,  1830,  1831. 


7.  Judgment  in  cases  of  impeachment  shall  not  ex- 
tend further  than  to  removal  from  office,  and  disqualifi- 
cation to  hold  and  enjoy  any  office  of  honor,  trust,  or 
profit  under  the  United  States ;  but  the  party  convicted 
shall  nevertheless  be  liable  and  subject  to  indictment, 
trial,  judgment,  and  punishment,  according  to  law. 

1  Kilbourn  v.  Thompson,  103  IT.  S.  189,  190,  26  L.  ed.  377. 

2  Trial  of  Andrew  Johnson,  vol.  1,  pp.  175,  176,  186. 


55  Elections.  Art.  I,  §  4,  CI.  1 


SECTION  4. 

CONGRESS. 

1.  Elections  for  Senators  and  Eepresentatives. 

2.  Sessions   of   Congress. 

1.  The  times,  places,  and  manner  of  holding  elections 
for  Senators  and  Representatives,  shall  be  prescribed  in 
each  State  by  the  legislature  thereof;  but  the  Congress 
may  at  any  time  by  law  make  or  alter  such  regulations, 
except  as  to  the  places  of  choosing  Senators. 

While  it  is  the  duty  of  the  state  legislature  to  enact  laws  pre- 
scribing the  time,  place  and  manner  of  holding  elections,  if  it 
has  failed  to  do  so,  the  governor  may  give  notice  of  the  time 
and  place,  and  the  person  elected  to  Congress  will  be  entitled 
to  his  seat;1  but  the  governor  cannot  delegate  to  another  the 
power  to  fix  the  time — e.  g.,  to  the  person  carrying  the  writs.2 
Where  a  state  constitution  fixes  the  time  of  election,  it  places 
it  beyond  the  control  of  the  legislature.3  But  as  to  the  place  of 
election,  it  was  declared  that  a  constitutional  provision  prohib- 
iting an  elector  from  voting  outside  his  own  township  or  ward 
was  overridden  by  an  act  of  legislature  permitting  soldiers  ta 
vote  outside  their  states,  wherever  their  regiments  might  be.4 

Congress,  by  refraining  from  altering  state  laws  respecting 
congressional  elections,  in  effect  adopts  them,  but  retains  its 
power  to  provide  additional  means  for  their  enforcement;5  the 
failure  of  Congress  to  exercise  its  power  does  not  impair  the 
force  of  the  grant,  but  it  may  be  exercised,  and  new  regulations 

i  Hoge's  Case,  CI.  &  H.  135. 

2  Grafflin's  Case,  1  Bart.  464. 

3  Shiel  v.  Thayer,  1  Bart.  349.  The  chairman  of  the  committee  so 
reporting  argued  on  the  floor  that  the  words  "by  the  legislature 
thereof"  meant  by  the  people,  through  any  constituted  authority. 
But  see  Baldwin  v.  Trowbridge,  2  Bart.  46. 

4  Baldwin  v.  Trowbridge,  2  BaTt.  4-6. 

5  Ex  parte  Siebold,  100  TJ.  S.  389,  25  L.  ed.  717. 


Art.  I,  §  4,  CI.  1  Elections.  56 

made  or  existing  ones  altered  after  state  legislation  on  the  sub- 
ject.6 Congress  may  exercise  this  power  without  assuming  en- 
tire control  of  the  subject  of  elections  for  senators  and  repre- 
sentatives.7 It  may  make  provision  for  the  fair  and  honest  con- 
duct of  such  elections,  and  to  this  end  may  adopt  state  election 
statutes  and  enforce  them  in  the  federal  courts.8  Although  this1 
clause  of  the  constitution  adopts  state  qualifications  of  voters', 
as  qualifications  for  voters  for  members  of  Congress,  the  right 
of  persons  thus  ascertained  is  based  upon  the  constitution,  and 
Congress  may  enact  laws  protecting  that  right.9  The  power  of 
Congress  extends  to  the  registration  of  voters  at  elections  for 
members  of  Congress,10  and  a  fraudulent  addition  to  the  list  of 
voters  is  punishable  under  federal  law.11 

The  object  of  the  power  is  to  insure,  in  elections  for  senators 
and  representatives,  the  protection  of  electors  in  a  free  inter- 
change of  views,  and  a  free  choice  and  vote.12  So  Congress  mav 
make  or  adopt  regulations  and  prescribe  a  penalty  for  their 
violation.13  It  may  require  state  officers  to  perform  duties  under 
state  laws  at  a  congressional  election,14  and  may  punish  fraud  or 
any  other  illegal  act  on  the  part  of  state  officers  at  such  an 
election.15     Section  5511  of  the  Eevised  Statutes  is  applicable 

6  Ex  parte  Siebold,  100  U.  S.  389,  25  L.  ed.  717;  Ex  parte  Clarke, 
100  XL  S.  404.  25  L.  ed.  715;  United  States  v.  Gale,  109  IT.  S.  65, 
3  S.  Ct.  1,  27  L.  ed.  857;  In  re  Coy,  127  U.  S.  752,  8  S.  Ct.  1263,  32  L. 
ed.  274;  Blitz  v.  United  States,  153  U.  S.  314,  14  S.  Ct.  924,  38  L.  ed. 
725;  United  States  v.  Badcr,  4  Woods,  190,  16  Fed.  117;  United 
States  v.  O'Connor,  31  Fed.  452;  United  States  v.  Kelsey,  42  Fed. 
883. 

7  Ex  parte  Siebold,  100  U.  S.  383,  25  L.  ed.  717. 

s  In  re  Coy,  127  U.  S.  752,  8  S.  Ct.  1263,  32  L.  ed.  274. 
0  Ex  parte  Yarbrough,  110  U.  S.  644,  4  S.  Ct.  152,  28  L.  ed.  274. 
10   Ex  parte  Geissler,  9  Biss.  492,  4  Fed.  188. 

li  Ex  parte  Bader,  4  Woods,  190,  16  Fed.  117;  In  re  Holt,  104  Fed. 
336;  In  re  Spooner,  104  Fed.  334. 

12  United  States  v.  Goldman,  3  Woods,  187,  Fed.  Gas.  No.  15,225. 

13  United  States  v.  O'Connor,  31  Fed.  452. 

14  In  re  Coy,  127  U.  S.  743,  8  S.  Ct.  1263,  32  L.  ed.  274,  affirming 
31  Fed.  804. 

15  Ex  parte  Siebold,  100  U.  S.  391,  25  L.  ed.  717;  Ex  parte  Clarke, 
100  U.  S.  404,  25  L.  ed.  715;  United  States  v.  Gale,  109  U.  S.  66, 
3  S.  Ct.  2,  27  L.  ed.  857. 


57  Elections.  Art.  I,  §  4,  CI.  2 

only  to  those  acts  or  omissions  at  elections  which  affect  or  might 
affect  the  integrity  of  an  election  for  a  congressman;16  but  the 
power  is  in  nowise  affected  by  the  fact  that  a  state  election  is 
held  simultaneously,17  and  the  power  of  Congress  to  protect  poll- 
books  from  falsification  is  undoubted,  and  that  danger  is  not 
removed,  because  the  purpose  of  the  exposure  is  to  falsify 
returns  for  state  officers  and  not  those  for  a  congressman.18 

The  federal  constitution  having  declared  that  the  legislatures 
of  the  several  states  shall  regulate  elections  for  congressmen, 
if  the  constitution  of  a  state  authorizes  the  general  assem- 
bly, and  that  alone,  to  pass  a  registration  law,  an  ordinance 
purporting  to  regulate  registration,  passed  by  a  city  council,  is 
inoperative.19  While  Congress  possesses  the  power  to  alter  the 
regulations  of  the  states  in  regard  to  elections  of  senators  and 
representatives,  its  power  does  not  extend  to  commanding  state 
legislatures  to  make  such  regulations,  and  any  attempted  altera- 
tion by  Congress  which  cannot  b'e  carried  into  effect  except  by 
auxiliary  state  legislation  is  void.20 


2.  The  Congress  shall  assemble  at  least  once  in 
every  year,  and  such  meeting  shall  be  on  the  first  Mon- 
day in  December,  unless  they  shall  by  law  appoint  a 
different  day. 

16  Blitz  v.  United  States,  153  U.  S.  314,  14  S.  Ct.  924,  38  L.  ed. 
725. 

17  Ex  parte  Yarbrough,  110  TJ.  S.  662,  4  S.  Ct.  157,  28  L.  ed.  274. 

18  In  re  Coy,  127  U.  S.  754,  8  S.  Ct.  1263,  32  L.  ed.  274. 

19  Sessinghaus  v.  Frost,  2  Ells.  387. 

20  Members  Elected  by  General  Ticket,  1  Bart.  52. 


Art.  I,  §  5,  CI.  1        Powers  of  Houses.  58 


SECTION  5. 

POWERS   OF   HOUSES   OF   CONGRESS. 

1.  Judges  of  qualifications  of  their  own  members.     Quorum. 

2.  Rules  of  proceedings.     Expulsions. 

3.  Journals. 

4.  Adjournments. 

1.  Each  House  shall  be  the  judge  of  the  elections, 
returns,  and  qualifications  of  its  own  members,  and  a 
majority  of  each  shall  constitute  a  quorum  to  do  busi- 
ness; but  a  smaller  number  may  adjourn  from  day  to 
day,  and  may  be  authorized  to  compel  the  attendance 
of  absent  members,  in  such  manner  and  under  such 
penalties  as  each  House  may  provide. 

Qualifications. 

Whether  a  person  has  been  regularly  elected  a  senator  is  a 
question  exclusively  for  the  Senate,  and  neither  the  state  su- 
preme court  nor  Secretary  of  State  can  pass  upon  it.1  The 
returns  from  the  state  authorities,  showing  the  election  of- a 
certain  person  as  senator  or  representative,  are  only  prima  facie 
evidence  of  qualification.2  A  commission  issued  by  the  governor 
does  not  preclude  any  inquiry  necessary  to  the  judgment  of 
"elections,  returns  and  qualifications";3  nor  can  the  refusal  of 
the  governor  to  issue  a  certificate  of  election  prejudice  the  right 
.of  one  entitled  to  a  seat.4  The  decision  that  a  senator  is  entitled 
to  a  seat  is  final  and  conclusive  upon  the  state  legislature,  and 
all  persons  claiming  seats  under  its  authority.5  A  certificate 
issued  by  the  governor  of  a  territory  in  violation  of  the  law  is 

1  State  v.  Crawford,  28  Fla.  441,  10  South.  118,  14  L.  R.  A.  253. 

2  Spaulding  v.  Mead,  CI.  &  H.  157;  Chrisman  v.  Anderson,  1  Bart. 
328;  Reed  v.  Cosden,  CI.  &  H.  353. 

3  Bateman's  Case,  Taft,  96. 

4  Richards'  Case,  CI.  &  H.  95. 

5  Case  of  Fitch  and  Bright,  Taft,  164. 


59  Powers  of  Houses.  Art.  I,  §  5,  CI.  1 

not  even  prima  facie  evidence  of  a  delegate's  right  to  a  seat.6 
The  oath  will  be  administered  to  a  senator  having  a  prima  facie 
right  to  a  seat;7  but  one  who  was  allowed  to  take  his  seat  on  a 
prima  facie  case,  and  afterward  ousted  by  a  contestant  right- 
fully elected,  cannot  be  deemed  to  have  been  a  member  of  Con- 
gress.8 

The  certificate  issued  by  the  governor  of  a  state  may  be  followed 
by  another  under  a  changed  condition  of  the  facts.9  So  a  cer- 
tificate may  issue  on  an  amended  return  of  the  votes  cast,10  and 
a  supplementary  return  is  entitled  to  be  received;11  e.  g.,  where 
the  original  return  was  made  by  the  wrong  officers.12  So  also 
the  governor  may  revoke  a  certificate  for  fraud.13  And  one 
holding  a  certificate  from  the  governor  of  a  territory,  given  in 
lieu  of  a  former  certificate  superseded  for  fraud  is  entitled  to 
his  seat  as  a  delegate.14  While  it  is  for  Congress  alone  to  judge 
of  the  elections,  returns,  and  qualification  of  its  own  members, 
where  county  canvassers  have  erroneously  acted  upon  a  recount 
of  the  votes  cast,  and  have  issued  a  certificate  in  accordance 
therewith,  the  candidate  who  is  injured  by  such  a  proceeding 
will  not  be  left  to  his  remedy  by  contest  in  the  House  of 
Representatives,  but  is  entitled  to  mandamus  to  compel  a  re- 
canvass.15  A  state  law  requiring  votes  to  be  returned  within  a 
certain  time  is  directory  only,16  and  if  not  so  returned  are  to  be 
counted,  if  opportunity  is  had  to  count  them.17 

Congress  has  the  right  to  exclude  a  member-elect  for  other 
than  the  constitutional  disqualifications  without  permitting  him 
to  be  sworn  in;  e.  g.,  for  polygamy,  insanity,  or  disloyalty,  or 

6  Colorado  Case,  Hunt  and  Chilcott,  2  Bart.  164. 

7  Lanman's  Case,  Taft,  579;  Morgan's  Case,  Taft,  581. 
S  Bowman  v.  Coffroth,  59  Pa.  St.  19. 

9  Wallace  v.  Simpson,  2  Bart.  731-746. 

10  Sleeper  v.  Rice,  1  Bart.  472. 

li   Archer  v.  Allen,  1  Bart.  169-176. 

12  Broekenborough  v.  Cabell,  1  Bart.  79-87. 

13  Morton  v.  Daily,  1  Tart.  402-414. 

14  Morton  v.  Daily,  1  Bart.  402-414. 

15  Belknap  v.  Board,  94  Mich.  916,  54  N.  W.  376. 

16  Broekenborough   v.   Cabell,   1  Bart.   79-87. 

17  Kichards'   Case,  CI.   &  H.  95-100. 


Art.  I,  §  5,  CI.  1         Powers  of  Houses.  CO 

any  other  obvious  disqualification.18  So  the  Senate  may  inquire 
as  to  the  mental  capacity  of  a  senator-elect  to  take  the  oath.19 
It  seems  that  fraud  and  bribery  in  procuring  an  election  go  to 
the  validity  of  the  election,  and  do  not  merely  furnish  ground 
for  expulsion.20  Accusations  against  the  character  of  a  senator- 
elect  imputing  to  him  the  commission  of  a  crime  will  not  be 
considered  until  after  he  has  been  formally  charged  and  con- 
victed of  the  crime.21  Disloyalty  is  a  disqualification  which  will 
deprive  a  member-elect  of  the  right  to  be  sworn  in  ;22  but  where 
it  is  shown  that  a  person  seemingly  disloyal  during  war  was  in 
fact  loyal,  he  will  be  held  eligible.23  So  the  fact  that  a 
senator-elect  had  held  the  office  of  circuit  judge  by  election  in 
an  insurrectionary  state  was  declared  insufficient  to  warrant  his 
exclusion,  where  he  was  shown  to  have  been  loyal  to  the  Union.24 

Members  elected  for  an  extra  or  special  session  must  give  way 
to  regularly  elected  members  for  that  Congress.25  Where  the 
House  is  unable  to  determine  which  of  two  claimants  for  a  seat 
was  legally  elected,  the  seat  will  be  declared  vacant,  and  a  new 
election  ordered.26  In  no  event,  however,  where  a  senator-elect 
is  found  to  be  disqualified,  will  the  person  receiving  the  next 
highest  number  of  votes  be  entitled  to  the  seat.27  A  territorial 
government  must  be  in  existence  before  a  delegate  can  be  ad- 
mitted.28 

In  a  proceeding  to  determine  the  qualifications  of  its  members- 
elect,  each  House  may  examine  witnesses  and  require  the  pro- 
duction of  papers,  and  may  punish  witnesses  for  contempt.20 

18  Roberts'  Case,  Rep.  85,  1st  Sess.,  56th  Cong. 

19  Mills'  Case,  Taft,  136. 

20  Pomeroy  and  Caldwell's  Case,  Taft,  368. 

21  Marshall's  Case,  Taft,   68. 

22  McKeo  v.  Young,  2  Bart.  422;  Christy  v.  Wimpy,  2  Bart.  465; 
Smith  v.  Brown,  2  Bart.  395. 

23  Tucker  v.  Booker,  2  Bart.  772. 

24  Patterson's  Case,  Taft,  271. 

2".   Grholson   &   Claiborne's   Case,   1   Bart.   9. 

26  Letcher  v.  Moore,  CI.  &  H.  715. 

27  Ransom  v.  Abbott,  Taft,  338. 

28  Smith's  Case,'  1  Bart.  107;  Babbitt's  Case,  1  Bart.  116.  And 
see  Messervey's  Case,  1  Bart.  148. 

29  Kilbouxn  v.  Thompson,  103   U.  S.  168,  26  L.   ed.  377. 


61  Powers  of  Houses.  Art.  I,  §  5,  CI.  1 

Testimony  taken  before  a  state  notary  public  in  a  case  of  con- 
tested election  for  a  congressman,  for  the  purpose  of  being  re- 
turned to  and  considered  by  the  House  acting  in  a  judicial 
capacity  under  this  clause  is  upon  the  same  footing  as  testimony 
produced  before  a  federal  judge  or  officer,  and  perjury  in  giving 
such  testimony  is  punishable  only  in  the  federal  courts.30 

Quorum. 

The  Houses  of  Congress  may  prescribe  any  reasonable  rule  for 
determining  the  presence  of  a  majority;  hence  rule  15  of  the 
House  of  Eepresentatives,  of  the  fifty-first  Congress,  providing 
that  the  names  of  members  present,  and  not  voting,  may  be 
entered  on  the  journal,  is  a  valid  exercise  of  the  power  of  the 
House  to  determine  the  rules  of  its  proceedings.31 

30  In  re  Loney,  134  U.  S.  375,  10  S.  Ct.  585,  33  L.  ed.  949.  See, 
also,  United  States  v.  Bailey,  9  Pet.  257,  9  L.  ed.  113. 

31  TjDited  States  v.  Ballin,  144  U.  S.  6,  12  S.  Ct.  507,  3S  L.  ed.  321. 


Art.  I,  §  5,  CI.  2        Powers  of  Houses.  62 

2.  Each  House  may  determine  the  rules  of  its  pro- 
ceedings, punish  its  members  for  disorderly  behavior, 
and,  with  the  concurrence  of  two-thirds,  expel  a  mem- 
ber. 

Rules  of  Proceedings. 

This  clause  empowers  each  House  to  determine  its  rules  of 
proceedings,  but  it  may  not,  by  such  rules,  ignore  constitutional 
restraints  or  violate  fundamental  rights.1  The  rule  for  deter- 
mining the  presence  of  a  majority  is  a  proper  exercise  of  this 
power.2 

Contempt. 

Under  this  clause  the  Houses  have  implied  power  to  punish 
for  contempt  committed  in  their  presence  when  in  session.3 
Imprisonment  for  contempt  must  terminate  with  the  adjourn- 
ment of  Congress;  as  a  legislative  body,  Congress  ceases  to 
exist  upon  adjournment  or  periodical  dissolution,  and  its  au- 
thority ceases  with  it.4  The  English  parliament  was  originally 
a  high  court  of  judicature,  and,  after  its  separation  into  two 
houses,  each  was  deemed  to  retain  its  judicial  functions;  hence 
its  power  to  punish  for  contempt;  but  the  power  of  Congress 
cannot  be  deemed  analogous,  and  in  determining  the  question 
of  the  power  of  Congress  to  punish  for  contempt  the  question  is 
whether  it  is  necessary  to  enable  Congress  to  exercise  its  func- 
tions.5 No  person  can  be  punished  by  either  House  of  Con- 
gress for  contumacy  as  a  witness,  unless  his  testimony  is  re- 
quired in  a  matter  into  which  that  House  has  jurisdiction  to 
inquire,  and  neither  House  has  jurisdiction  to  inquire,  or 
possesses  general  power  of  making  inquiry  into  private  affairs 

1  United  States  v.  Ballin,  144  U.  S.  5,  12  S.  Ct.  507,  36  L.  ed. 
321. 

2  United  States  v.  Ballin,  144  U.  S.  5,  12  S.  Ct.  507,  36  L.  ed. 
321. 

3  Anderson  v.  Dunn,  6  Wheat.  229,  5  L.  ed.  242. 

4  Anderson  v.  Dunn,  6  Wheat.  231,  5  L.  ed.  242;  Stewart  v.  Blaine, 
1  McAr.  453;  Wickelhausen  v.  Willett,  10  Abb.  Pr.  164. 

5  Kilbouzn  v.  Thompson,  103  U.  S.  189,  26  L.  ed.  377. 


63  Powers  of  Houses.  Art.  I,  §  5,  CI.  2 

of  a  citizen;  and  the  courts  may  inquire  as  to  the  jurisdiction.6 
The  power  of  one  of  the  Houses  to  punish  for  contempt  is  not 
confined  to  the  punishment  of  members  of  that  body,  but  may 
be  exercised  over  others,7  in  secret  as  well  as  in  open  session.8 
But  Congress  cannot  establish  its  right  to  fine  and  imprison  per- 
sons by  the  mere  act  of  asserting  them  to  be  guilty  of  contempt ; 
it  is  always  competent  to  show  that  Congress  is  proceeding  in 
a  matter  beyond  its  legitimate  cognizance.9  While,  ordinarily, 
Congress  has  no  power  to  investigate  private  affairs,  or  to  compel 
a  witness  to  testify  on  such  a  subject,10  yet  where  the  question 
is  as  to  whether  a  senator  had  dealt  in  ceitain  stock,  the  Senate 
may  compel  a  witness  to  answer  questions  going  to  show  such 
dealings.11  The  warrant  to  commit  for  contempt  may  be  served 
anywhere  within  the  boundaries  of  the  United  States;12  but  a 
warrant  of  arrest  issued  by  the  Senate  and  addressed  to  the 
sergeant-at-arms  cannot  be  served  in  a  state  by  a  deputy.13 

Expulsion. 

The  right  to  expel  a  member  is  absolute,  limited  by  the  con- 
dition that  it  must  be  exercised  by  a  two-thirds  vote.14  Either 
House  may  expel  a  member  for  any  misdemeanor  which,  though 
having  no  penalty  attached  to  it,  is  incompatible  with  the  trust 
and  duty  of  a  member;15  but  the  power  to  expel  ought  not  to/ 
be  exercised  for  a  cause  unrelated  to  that  trust  and  duty.16 

C  Kilbourn  v.  Thompson,  103  U.  S.  190,  196,  26  L.  ed.  377. 

7  Anderson  v.  Dunn,  6  Wheat.  229,  5  L.  ed.  242;  Bolton  v.  Martin, 
1  Dall.  296. 

8  Nugent 's  Case,  18  Fed.  Cas.  472. 

9  Kilbourn  v.  Thompson,  103  U.  S.  196-200,  26  L.  ed.  377,  partially 
overruling  Anderson  v.  Dunn,  6  "Wheat.  204,  5  L.  ed.  242. 

10  Kilbourn  v.  Thompson,  103  U.  S.  190,  26  L.  ed.  377. 

11  In  re  Chapman,  166  U.  S.  668,  17  S.  Ct.  680,  41  L.  ed.  1154. 
And  see  People  v.  Keeler,  99  N.  Y.  476,  52  Am.  Eep.  54,  2  N.  E.  620; 
People  v.  Sharp,  107  N.  Y.  445,  1  Am.  St.  Eep.  857,  14  N.  E.  332. 

12  Anderson  v.  Dunn,  6  Wheat.  204. 

13  Sanborn  v.  Carlton,  15  Gray,  402. 

14  Roberts'  Case  (Minority  Rep.),  Rep.  85,  p.  46,  56th  Cong.,  1st 
Sess. 

15  Blount's  Case,  Taft,  74;  Smith's  Case,  1  Hall's  S.  L.  J.  459; 
Bright 's  Case,  Taft,  217. 

16  Eoberts'   Case,  Rep.  85,  56th  Cong.,   1st   Sess. 


Art.  I,  §  5,  CI.  2         Powers  of  Houses.  64 

Conspiracy  against  the  Union,  or  having  knowledge  of  con- 
spiracy, and  failing  to  report  it.  is  ground  for  expulsion.17 
Countenancing  rebellion  is  equivalent  to  giving  aid  and  comfort 
to  public  enemies,  and  warrants  expulsion.18  The  Senate  has 
jurisdiction  to  inquire  as  to  the  truth  of  charges  in  the  public 
press  as  to  alleged  dealings  of  senators  in  the  stock  of  corpora- 
tions affected  by  a  pending  tariff  bill,  and  it  is  not  essential  that 
the  preamble  and  resolution  instituting  the  inquiry  shall  declare 
that  the  proceeding  is  taken  for  the  purpose  of  censure  or  ex- 
pulsion.19 

A.  resolution  of  expulsion  will  not  be  considered  after  the 
term  of  the  accused  senator  has  expired.20  But  a  member  who 
has  saved  himself  from  expulsion  by  resigning  while  the  resolu- 
tion was  pending  will  be  refused  admission  upon  his  re-elec- 
tion.21 

17  Expulsion  of  Senators,  Taft,  195;  Wigf all's  Case,  Taft,  199. 

18  Polk's  Case,  Taft,  213;  Bright 's  Case,  Taftj  217;  Johnson's  Case, 
Taft,  215. 

19  In  re  Chapman,  166  U.  S.  661,  17  S.  Ct.  677,  41  L.  ed.  1154. 

20  Patterson's    Case,    Taft,    423. 

21  Whittemore's  Case,  41st  Cong. 


65  Journals.  Art.  I,  §  5,  CI.  3, 4 

3.  Each  House  shall  keep  a  Journal  of  its  proceed- 
ings, and  from  time  to  time  publish  the  same,  excepting 
such  parts  as  may  in  their  judgment  require  secrecy; 
and  the  yeas  and  nays  of  the  Members  of  either  House 
on  any  question  shall,  at  the  desire  of  one-fifth  of  those 
present,  be  entered  on  the  Journal. 

A  journal  is  a  public  record  of  which  the  courts  will  take 
judicial  notice,1  and  to  which  they  may  refer  whenever  a  ques- 
tion arises  as  to  the  existence  of  a  statute,  or  of  the  time  when  it 
took  effect,  or  of  its  precise  terms.2  The  legislative  journal 
must  be  presumed  to  speak  the  truth  if  it  may  be  referred  to  as 
evidence,3  and  a  stntute  found  in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of 
State,  duly  authenticated,  and  shown  by  the  journal  to  have 
been  passed  by  a  quorum  is  unimpeachable.4  The  journal  can- 
not be  kept  secret  unless  the  proceedings  are  secret;  but  the 
holding  of  a  secret  session  by  either  House  is  in  its  discretion.5 


4.  Neither  House,  during  the  session  of  Congress, 
shall,  without  the  consent  of  the  other,  adjourn  for 
more  than  three  days,  nor  to  any  other  place  than  that 
in  which  the  two  Houses  shall  be  sitting. 

1  Brown  v.  Nash,  1  Wyo.  85. 

2  Hollingsworth   v.   Thompson,  45  La.   Ann.   222,   40   Am.   St.   Eep. 
220,  12  South.  1. 

3  United  States  v.  Ballin,  144  IT.  S.  4,  12  S.  Ct.  507,  36  L.  ed.  321. 

4  United  States  v.  Ballin,   144  U.   S.   9,   12  S.   Ct.  507,  36  L.  ed. 
321;  State  v.  Chester,  39  S.  C.  316,  17  S.  E.  755. 

5  Nugent 's  Case,  18  Fed.  Cas.  472  (No.  13,375). 
Nottes  on  Constitution — 5 


Art.  I,  §  6,  CI.  1         Eights  01-  Members.  66 


SECTION"  6. 

COMPENSATION  AND  PRIVILEGES  OF  MEMBERS. 

1.  Compensation   of   members.     Privileges   of   Senators   and   Repre- 

sentatives. 

2.  Ineligibility  to  United  States  offices. 

1.  The  Senators  and  Representatives  shall  receive  a 
compensation  for  their  services,  to  be  ascertained  by 
law,  and  paid  out  of  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States. 
They  shall  in  all  cases,  except  treason,  felony,  and 
breach  of  the  peace,  be  privileged  from  arrest  during 
their  attendance  at  the  session  of  their  respective 
Houses,  and  in  going  to  and  returning  from  the  same; 
and  for  any  speech  or  debate  in  either  House,  they  shall 
not  be  questioned  in  any  other  place. 

Compensation. 

Under  section  51,  Revised  Statutes,  relating  to  vacancies 
in  Congress,  the  "predecessor"  referred  to  must  have  been  in 
the  same  Congress ;  but  the  term  includes  one  having  credentials 
and  drawing  his  salary  although  afterward  unseated  on  the 
ground  that  he  was  not  legally  elected.  Accordingly,  the  per- 
son elected  to  fill  the  vacancy  is  entitled  to  compensation  from 
the  time  the  seat  was  declared  vacant.1 

Privileges  of  Members. 

The  privilege  of  exemption  from  arrest  may  be  pleaded  in  bar 
in  all  cases  other  than  treason,  felony,  and  breach  of  the  peace; 
but  the  courts  will  not  take  judicial  notice  of  the  privilege  and 
failure  to  plead  it  will  be  deemed  a  waiver.2  Arrest  implies  cor- 
poral restraint.3     The  privilege  from  arrest  could  not  be  sur- 

1  Page  v.  Uniteil  States,  127  U.  S.  69,  8  S.  Ct.  1026,  32  L.  ed.  65. 

2  Coxe  v.  McClenachan,  3  Dall.  478;  Oyer's  Lessees  v.  Irwin,  4 
Dall.  107. 

3  Wooley  v.  Butler,  1  Bank.  L.  T.  35. 


67  Eights  of  Members.         Art.  I,  §  6,  CI.  1 

rendered  without  endangering  the  public  as  well  as  the  private 
independence  of  the  member.4  It  extends  to  judicial  as  well  as 
mesne  process,  and  a  person  arrested  is  entitled  to  his  discharge 
on  the  privilege  afterward  acquired;5  but  there  is  no  privilege 
from  the  service  or  obligation  of  a  subpoena  in  a  criminal  case,6 
and  in  no  case  can  a  member  be  placed  by  his  position  above 
responsibility  to  the  legal  tribunals  of  the  country  and  to  or- 
dinary process  for  arrest  and  detention,  when  accused  of  a 
felony.7  This  clause  does  not  preclude  an  indictment  for  brib- 
ery ;7a  nor  does  it  protect  a  member  from  arrest  on  probable 
cause  that  a  breach  of  the  peace  is  about  to  be  committed.8 
The  privilege  is  to  be  taken  strictly,  and  to  be  allowed  only  dur- 
ing attendance  on  Congress,  or  while  actually  on  the  journey 
to  or  from  the  seat  of  government;9  but  it  is  not  waived  by  a 
slight  deviation  from  the  route  which  is  most  direct.10  It  is 
limited  to  a  convenient  and  reasonable  time  in  addition  to  the 
actual  session;11  but  it  is  strictly  personal  and  does  not  extend 
to  servants  or  to  property  levied  upon.12  Members  are  priv- 
ileged not  only  from  arrest,  but  also  from  a  service  of  summons 
or  other  civil  process  while  in  attendance  on  their  public 
duties;13  but  it  seems  that  attendance  on  Congress  does  not 
entitle  a  party  to  the  postponement  of  his  suit  as  a  matter  of 
right,   although  the   court  may   grant  a   postponement   upon 

4  Bolton  v.  Martin,  1  Dall.  296;  Coffin  v.  Coffin,  4  Mass.  1,  3  Am. 
Dec.  189. 

5  Coxe  v.  MeClenachan,  3  Dall.  478;  Nones  v.  Edsall,  1  Wall.  Jr. 
189,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,290. 

6  United  States  v.  Cooper,  4  Dall.  341. 

7  United  States  v.  Kirby,  7  Wall.  486,  19  L.  ed.  278;  State  v. 
Waite,  101  Iowa,  380,  70  N.  W.  597;  Penny  v.  Walker,  64  Me.  434, 
18  Am.  Eep.  272. 

7a  State  v.  Smalls,  11  S.  C.  262. 

8  United  States  v.  Wise,  1  Dist.  Col.  Eep.  82,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,746a. 

9  Lewis  v.  Elmendorf,  2  Johns.  Cas.  222.  And  see  McCulloch  v. 
Maryland,  4  Wheat.  316,  4  L.  ed.  579. 

10  Miner  v.  Markham,  28  Fed.  3S7. 

11  Hoppin  v.  Jenekes,  8  E.  I.  453,  5  Am.  Eep.  597. 

12  Jefferson's  Manual,  §  3. 

13  Coxe  v.  MeClenachan,  3  Dall.  478. 


Art.  I,  §  6,  CI.  1         Eights  of  Members.  68 

terms.14  One  who  goes  to  Washington,  duly  commissioned,  is 
privileged  from  arrest,  and  although  it  is  afterward  determined 
by  Congress  that  he  is  not  entitled  to  his  seat,  he  is  protected 
until  he  reaches  his  home,  provided  he  returns  within  a  reason- 
able time.15  The  privilege  extends  to  a  delegate  from  a  territory 
as  well  as  a  member  from  a  state.10  The  sergeant-at-arms  may 
be  held  for  false  imprisonment  of  one  unlawfully  held  by  him 
under  the  order  of  the  House;  but  members  who  took  no  actual 
part  in  the  arrest  or  imprisonment  are  exempt  under  the  con- 
stitutiou.17 

The  constitutional  exemption  of  members  of  Congress  is  not 
limited  to  words  spoken  in  debate,  but  extends  to  written  com- 
mittee reports,  resolutions  offered,  and  the  act  of  voting  orally  or 
by  passing  between  tellers.18  It  applies  to  speech  or  debate  in 
either  House;  19  but  does  not  cover  its  publication  by  a  mem- 
ber.20 

14  Nones  v.  Edsall,  1  Wall.  Jr.  189,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,290. 

15  Dunton  v.  Halstead,  4  Pa.  L.  J.  237. 

16  Doty  v.  Strong,  1  Pinn.  (Wis.)    88. 

17  Kilbourn  v.  Thompson,  103  U.  S.  200,  26  L.  ed.  377. 

18  Kilbourn  v.  Thompson,  103  U.  S.  204,  26  L.  ed.  377. 

19  Anderson  v.   Dunn,   6  Wheat.   215,   5  L.   ed.   242. 

20  Coffin  v.  Coffin,  4  Mass.  1,  3  Am.  Dec.  189.  See  Canfield  v. 
Gresham,  82  Tex.  17,  17  S.  W.  392. 


69  Incompatible  Offices.       Art.  I,  §  6,  CI.  2 

2.  No  Senator  or  Representative  shall,  during  the 
time  for  which  he  was  elected,  be  appointed  to  any  civil 
office  under  the  authority  of  the  United  States,  which 
shall  have  been  created,  or  the  emoluments  whereof 
shall  have  been  increased  during  such  time;  and  no  per- 
son holding  any  office  under  the  United  States,  shall  be 
a  member  of  either  House  during  his  continuance  in 
office. 

The  acceptance  by  the  same  person  of  an  office  incompatible 
with  another  held  by  him  is  a  virtual  resignation  or  forfeiture 
of  the  office  first  held.1  The  appointment  to  a  disqualifying 
office  is  not  void  as  to  that  office,  but  the  first  office  is  ipso  facto 
vacated.2  It  would  seem  that  the  rule  should  operate  to  vacate 
an  incompatible  office  upon  a  representative's  taking  his  seat, 
without  the  necessity  of  a  formal  resignation,  and  such  was  the 
argument  in  a  case  where  the  point  was  not  necessarily  involved, 
the  office  having  ceased  to  exist,  and  the  member  being  allowed 
to  take  his  seat.3  The  acceptance  of  any  office  under  the  United 
States  by  a  member  after  he  has  taken  his  seat,  operates  as  a 
forfeiture  of  the  seat,4  and  the  acceptance  of  an  incompatible 
office  by  a  contestant  destroys  any  claim  he  might  have  had  to 
the  seat.5  It  is  immaterial  whether  the  member  or  contestant 
performs  the  duties  of  the  second  office  or  not ;  it  is  the  holding 
of  the  office  which  is  incompatible  with  membership  in  Con- 
gress.6 The  continuance  in  an  office  after  election  to  Congress, 
and  until  taking  his  seat,  does  not  disqualify  a  member-elect  if 
he  resigned  before  the  beginning  of  the  first  session.7  A 
representative-elect  may  hold  an  incompatible  office  subsequent 

1  Byington  v.  Vandever,  1  Bart.  397. 

2  People  v.  Carrique,  2  Hill,  93;  Biencourt  v.  Parker,  27  Tex. 
558. 

3  Mumford's   Case,   CI.   &  H.   318. 

4  Van   Ness'   Case,   CI.   &  H.   122. 

5  Bowen  v.  De  Large,  Smith,  100. 

6  Hammond  v.  Herrick,   CI.   &  H.   289. 

7  Hammond  v.  Herrick,  CI.  &  H.  289;  Earle's  Case,  CI.  &  H.  314; 
Stanton  v.  Lane,  Taft,  205;  Washburn  v.  Eipley,  CI.  &  H.  682. 


Art.  I,  §  6,  CI.  2        Incompatible  Offices.  70 

to  his  election,  and  subsequent  to  the  -11  h  of  March,  when  Con- 
gress ceases  to  exist,  but  at  the  beginning  of  the  first  session 
of  Congress  to  which  he  is  elected,  he  must  choose  between  the 
two  offices.8  A  member  of  Congress  who  had  held  the  office  of 
assessor  of  taxes,  and  had  not  resigned  such  office,  was  permitted 
to  retain  his  seat  on  the  ground  that  the  duties  of  the  office 
had  ceased,  and  the  law  under  which  the  office  was  created  had 
expired  before  he  took  the  seat.9  The  acceptance  of  a  military 
commission  vacates  the  seat  of  a  member  of  Congress,10  and 
this  notwithstanding  the  commission  styles  the  holder  as  an 
officer  in  the  militia  of  a  state,  the  officers  of  the  volunteer  army 
being  deemed  officers  of  the  United  States.11  The  employment 
of  a  member  of  Congress  to  assist  the  attorney  general  in  certain 
cases,  for  a  specified  compensation,  does  not  make  him  an  officer 
so  as  to  affect  his  right  to  his  seat.12  One  holding  two  com- 
patible offices  is  not  precluded  from  receiving  the  salaries  of 
both.1 3 

8  Schenck  v.  Blair,  Eep.  110,  1st  Sess.,  38th  Cong. 
»  Mumford's  Case,  CI.  &  H.  316. 

10  Baker  &  Yell's  Case,  1  Bart.  92;  Stanton  v.  Lane,  Taft,  205. 

11  Byington  v.  Vandever,  1  Bart.  396. 

12  Massey  v.  Wise,  Mobley,  367.     And  see  Chalmers  v.  Manning, 
Mobley,  35. 

13  Converse  v.  United  States,  21  How.  463,  16  L.  ed.  192;  Brown's 
Case,  9  Opin.  Atty.  Gen.  508. 


.71  Enactment  of  Laws.        Art.  I,  §  7,  CI.  1 


SECTION  7. 

ENACTMENT   OF  LAWS. 

1.  Revenue  bills.     Where  to  originate. 

2.  Manner  of  passage.     How  passed  without  President's  approval. 

3.  Orders,  resolutions,   and  votes.     President's  approval. 

1.  All  bills  for  raising  revenue  shall  originate  in  the 
House  of  Representatives;  but  the  Senate  may  propose 
or  concur  with  amendments  as  on  other  bills. 

Revenue  laws  are  those  made  for  the  direct  and  avowed  pur- 
pose of  creating  revenue  or  public  funds  for  government  pur- 
poses,1 and  traceable  to  the  power  to  levy  taxes,  duties,  imposts 
and  excises.2  Accordingly,  under  this  clause,  the  House  has 
the  sole  power  to  originate  bills  for  taxation.3  An  act  establish- 
ing a  postal  money-order  system  is  not  a  revenue  law,4  nor  is  a 
hill  establishing  rates  of  postage.5 

1  United  States  v.  Norton,  91  U.  S.  569,  23  L.  ed.  448;  State  v. 
Bernheim,  19  Mont.  517,  49  Pac.  443;  Northern  Counties  Trust  Co. 
v.  Sears,  30  Or.  402,  41  Pac.  935,  35  L.  R.  A.  188;  Johnson  v.  Hanscom, 
90  Tex.  329,  38  S.  W.  764. 

2  United  States  v.  Hill,  123  U.  S.  681,  8  S.  Ct.  308,  31  L.  ed.  275; 
United  States  v.  Hopewell,  51  Fed.  800. 

3  Stockton   etc.   R.   R.    Co.   v.    Stockton,   41    Cal.    165. 

4  United  States  v.  Norton,  91  U.  S.  568,  23  L.  ed.  448. 

5  United  States  v.  James,  13  Blatchf.  207,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,464. 


Art.  I,  §  7,  CI.  2        Enactment  of  Laws.  72 

2.  Every  bill  which  shall  have  passed  the  House  of 
Representatives  and  the  Senate  shall,  before  it  become 
a  law,  be  presented  to  the  President  of  the  United 
States;  if  he  approve  he  shall  sign  it,  but  if  not  he  shall 
return  it,  with  his  objections,  to  that  House  in  which 
it  shall  have  originated,  who  shall  enter  the  objections 
at  large  on  their  Journal,  and  proceed  to  reconsider  it. 
If,  after  such  reconsideration,  two-thirds  of  that  House 
shall  agree  to  pass  the  bill,  it  shall  be  sent,  together  with 
the  objections,  to  the  other  House,  by  which  it  shall 
likewise  be  reconsidered,  and  if  approved  by  two-thirds 
of  that  House,  it  shall  become  a  law.  But  in  all  such 
cases  the  votes  of  both  Houses  shall  be  determined  by 
yeae  and  nays,  and  the  names  of  the  persons  voting 
for  and  against  the  bill  shall  be  entered  on  the  Journal 
of  each  House  respectively.  If  any  bill  shall  not  be  re- 
turned by  the  President  within  ten  days  (Sundays  ex- 
cepted) after  it  shall  have  been  presented  to  him,  the 
same  shall  be  a  law,  in  like  manner  as  if  he  had  signed 
it,  unless  the  Congress  by  their  adjournment  prevent  its 
return,  in  which  case  it  shall  not  be  a  law. 

A  statute,  duly  certified,  is  presumed  to  have  been  duly  passed 
until  the  contrary  is  shown,  a  presumption  arising  in  favor  of 
the  law,  as  printed  by  authority.1  No  notice  of  the  passing  of 
a  law  is  necessary,  unless  made  so  by  the  law  itself.2  Neither 
the  constitution  nor  any  statute  requires  that  the  President  date 
a  bill  upon  signing  it.3  A  bill  becomes  a  law  either  by  the 
signing  of  it  by  the  President,  or  by  his  retaining  it  for  ten 
days  without  signing;4  but  he  must  receive  it  ten  entire  days 
before  adjournment,  or  it  will  not  become  a  law.5     If  he  ap- 

l   In  re  Duncan,  139  XL  S.  457,  11  S.  Ct.  573,  35  L.  ed.  219. 

P  The  Mary  and  Susan,  1  Wheat.  57,  4  L.  ed.  32. 

3  Gardner  v.  The  Collector,  6  Wall.  506,  IS  L.  ed.  890. 

4  Gardner  v.  The  Collector,  6  Wall.  506,  18  L.  ed.  890. 

5  Hyde  v.  White,  24  Tex.  145. 


73  Enactment  of  Laws.        Art.  I,  §  7,  CI.  2 

proves  a  bill  he  shall  sign  it,  but  he  need  not  indorse  on  it  the 
word  "approved."6  A  bill  signed  by  the  President  while  Con- 
gress is  in  recess  for  a  definite  time  is  not  invalid.7  The  man- 
ner of  keeping  journals  and  of  authenticating  a  bill  is  left  to  the 
discretion  of  Congress,  but  while  the  constitution  does  not  re- 
quire that  bills  which  have  passed  be  attested  by  the  presiding 
officers  of  the  two  Houses,  usage  requires  that  mode  of  authenti- 
cation.8 

A  bill  becomes  a  law  only  upon  approval  by  the  Presi- 
dent and  from  the  time  of  such  approval;9  but  Congress  may 
prescribe  the  very  moment,  in  the  future,  after  approval,  when 
it  shall  take  effect  as  a  law;10  and  when  no  time  is  fixed,  it 
takes  effect  from  its  date.11  In  computing  the  time  when  a 
statute  is  to  take  effect,  fractions  of  a  day  are  to  be  excluded,12 
except  when  substantial  justice  requires  that  they  be  included.13 
Congress  may  leave  the  ascertainment  of  the  contingency  upon 
which  an  act  shall  take  effect  to  any  agency  it  may  designate,14 
or  may  direct  that  it  take  effect  as  of  a  date  prior  to  its  passage.15 
In  case  of  doubt,  the  time  should  be  construed  in  favor  of  the 

6  Gardner  v.  The   Collector,  6  Wall.  506,  18  L.  ed.  890. 

7  La  Abra  Min.  Co.  v.  United  States,  175  U.  S.  454,  20  S.  Ct.  168, 
44  L.  ed.  223.     And  see  Hodge's  Case,  18  Ct.  of  CI.  700. 

8  Field  v.  Clark,  143  U.  S.  671,  12  S.  Ct.  495,  36  L.  ed.  649. 

9  Gardner  v.  Collector,  6  Wall.  506,  18  L.  ed.  890;  In  re  Kichardson, 

2  Story,  571,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,777. 

10  In   re   Kichardson,   2   Story,  571,  Fed.    Cas.   No.   11,777. 

li  Matthews  v.  Zane,  7  Wheat.  211,  5  L.  ed.  425;  Lapeyre  v. 
United  States,  17  Wall.  198,  21  L.  ed.  606;  In  re  Ankrim,  3  McLean, 
285,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  395;  Warren  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Aetna  Ins.  Co.,  2  Paine, 
501,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,206;  United  States  v.  Chong  Sam,  47  Fed.  883. 

12  Arnold  v.  United  States,  9  Cr.  120,  3  L.  ed.  671;  In  re  Ankrim, 

3  McLean,  285,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  395;  In  re  Kichardson,  2  Story,  571, 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,777;  United  States  v.  Williams,  1  Paine,  261,  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  16,723. 

13  In  re  Wynne,  1  Chase,  227,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,117;  In  re  Ankrim, 
3  McLean,  285,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  395;  In  re  Richardson,  3  Story,  571, 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,777. 

14  Miller  v.  Mayor,  109  U.  S.  394.  3  S.  Ct.  228,  27  L.  ed.  971. 

15  United  States  v.  Green,  138  U.  S.  296,  11  S.  Ct.  299,  24  L.  ed. 
960. 


Art.  1,  §  7,  CI.  2        Enactment  of  Laws.  74 

citizen.10  The  signing  by  the  presiding  officers  of  both  Houses, 
in  open  session,  of  an  enrolled  bill,  is  an  official  attestation  that 
it  has  passed  Congress,  and,  when  approved  by  the  President 
and  enrolled  in  the  public  archives,  its  authentication  as  a  valid 
act  of  Congress  is  complete  and  unimpeachable.17 

16  Tn  re  Kichardson,  2  Story,  571,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,777. 

17  Field  v.  Clark,  143  U.  S.  672,  12  S.  Ct.  495,  36  L.  ed.  294. 


75  Enactment  of  Laws.        Art.  I,  §  7,  CI.  3 

3.  Every  order,  resolution,  or  vote  to  which  the  con- 
currence of  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives 
may  be  necessary  (except  on  a  question  of  adjournment) 
shall  be  presented  to  the  President  of  the  United  States ; 
and  before  the  same  shall  take  effect,  shall  be  approved 
by  him,  or,  being  disapproved  by  him,  shall  be  repassed 
by  two-thirds  of  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representa- 
tives, according  to  the  rules  and  limitations  prescribed 
in  the  case  of  a  bill. 

This  clause  does  not  require  the  President's  approval  of  a 
proposed  amendment  to  the  constitution.1  A  joint  resolution 
duly  approved  by  the  President,  or  duly  passed  with  his  ap- 
proval, has  the  effect  of  a  law.2 

1  Hollingsworth  v.  Virginia,  3  Ball.  381,  1  L.  ed.  644.  And  see 
State  ex  rel.  v.  Secretary  of  State,  43  La.  Ann.  655,  9  South.  798. 

2  Resolutions  of  Congress,  6  Opin.  Atty.  Gen.  680. 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  1        Powers  of  Congress.  76 


SECTION  8. 

POWERS  OF  CONGRESS. 

1.  TaxeB,   duties,   etc.     Common   defense   and   general  welfare. 

2.  To  borrow  money. 

3.  To  regulate  commerce. 

4.  Naturalization.      Bankruptcies. 

5.  Coining  money.     Weights  and  measures. 

6.  Punishment    of   counterfeiting. 

7.  Postoffices  and  post-roads. 

8.  Patents  and  copyrights. 

9.  Courts. 

10.  Piracy  and  other  offenses. 

11.  To  declare  war,  etc. 

12.  Eaising  army. 

13.  Navy. 

14.  Army  and  navy  regulations. 

15.  Militia.     Insurrections,  etc. 

16.  Organizing,  arming,  and  disciplining  militia. 

17.  Exclusive  legislative  power  over  seat  of  Government,  forts,  etc. 

18.  To  make  laws  necessary  to  carry  powers  into  effect. 

1.  The  Congress  shall  have  power  to  lay  and  collect 
taxes,  duties,  imposts  and  excises,  to  pay  the  debts  and 
provide  for  the  common  defense  and  general  welfare  of 
the  United  States;  but  all  duties,  imposts  and  excises 
shall  be  uniform  throughout  the  United  States. 

Extent  of  Powers,  Generally. 

The  United  States  is  a  government  of  enumerated  powers; 
it  can  exercise  only  the  powers  granted  to  it  by  the  constitu- 
tion.1 either  expressly  or  by  necessary  implication.2  But  Con- 
gress has  powers  not  specified,  or  even  clearly  traceable  to  one 

1  McCulloch    v.    Maryland,    4   Wheat.    406,    4    L.    ed.    579;    United 
States  v.  Harris,  106  TJ.  S.  636,  1  S.  Ct.  606,  27  L.  ed.  290. 
2  Martin   v.   Hunter,   1   Wheat.   326,  4   L.   ed.   97. 


77  Powers  of  Congress.         Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  1 

of  the  specified  powers,  but  fairly  deducible  from  the  aggregate 
of  power,  or  the  sovereignty  created;3  the  constitution  deals  in 
general  language,  and  instead  of  minutely  specifying  the  powers 
of  the  general  government,  the  people  left  it  to  Congress  to 
adopt  its  own  means  of  carrying  out  its  powers.4 

Construction  of  Grant. 

The  words  in  a  grant  of  power  are  to  be  taken  in  their  natural 
and  obvious  sense,5  keeping  always  in  view  the  objects  for  which 
the  constitution  was  made,6  and  when  the  general  purpose  of 
the  grant  is  ascertained,  the  language  is  to  be  construed,  as  far 
as  possible,  as  subservient  to  that  purpose.7  The  powers  granted 
to  Congress  are  to  be  exercised  with  discretion,8  but  the  existence 
of  a  power  cannot  be  denied  merely  because  it  may  be  abused  in 
its  exercise;  nor  should  it  be  presumed  that  abuses  will  take 
place;9  nor  does  the  question  of  power  depend  upon  the  degree 
to  which  it  may  be  exercised.10  The  fact  that  compliance  with 
the  constitution  will  lead  to  the  abandonment  of  a  certain 
recognized  mode  of  taxation  cannot  influence  the  determination 
of  a  question  of  power.11 

The  powers  conferred  upon  Congress  must  be  regarded  as 
relative  to  each  other  and  all  means  to  a  common  end;12  so 

3  Legal  Tender  Cases,  12  Wall.  534,  20  L.  ed.  287;  but  see  "United 
States  v.  Boyer,  85  Fed.  429;  United  States  v.  Gettysburg,  etc.  Ry., 
160  U.  S.  683,  16  S.  Ct.  427,  40  L.  ed.  576. 

4  Martin  v.  Hunter,  1  Wheat.  326,  4  L.  ed.  97. 

5  Martin  v.  Hunter,  1  Wheat.  304,  4  L.  ed.  97. 

6  Legal  Tender  Cases,  12  Wall.  457,  20  L.  ed.  287;  Brown  v.  Mary- 
land, 12  Wheat.  437,  6  L.  ed.  678;  McCall  v.  McDowell,  Deady,  254, 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  8673. 

7  Schollenberger  v.  Brinton,  52  Pa.  St.  9. 

8  Martin  v.  Hunter,  1  Wheat.  326,  4  L.  ed.  97. 

9  Powell  v.  Pennsylvania,  127  IT.  S.  686,  8  S.  Ct.  992,  32  L.  ed. 
253;  In  re  Rapier,  143  U.  S.  135,  12  S.  Ct.  374,  36  L.  ed.  93;  Kneedler 
v.  Lane,  45  Pa.  St.  238;  Metropolitan  Bank  v.  Van  Dyek,  27  N.  Y. 

400. 

io  Brown  v.  Maryland,  12  Wheat.  419,  6  L.  ed.  678;  State  v.  Good- 
will, 33  W.  Va.  184,  25  Am.  St.  Rep.  687,  10  S.  E.  287,  6  L.  R.  A. 
621. 

11  Pollock  v.  Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.,  158  U.  S.  633,  15  S.  Ct.  912, 
37  L.  ed.  1108. 

12  Legal  Tender  Cases,  12  Wall.  457,  20  L.  ed.  287. 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  1         Powers  of  Congress.  78 

when  Congress  has  power  to  do  an  act  by  virtue  of  distinct 
powers,  it  may  exercise  which  it  pleases;  and  when  it  professes 
to  ad  under  one  it  need  not  resort  to  any  other,13  or  when  Con- 
ha.s  power  to  accomplish  a  certain  result,  indirectly,  by 
one  mode,  it  may  do  so  directly  by  another;14  hut  no  power  in 
itself  substantive  can  be  exercised  or  contravened  by  action  un- 
der ;m  incidental  power,15  nor  can  an  act  which  cannot  be  done 
directly,  because  of  defect  in  power,  be  done  indirectly.16 

Limitations. 


The  nature  of  society  and  of  government  establish  certain 
limitations  upon  legislative  power  apart  from  constitutional  pro- 
visions;17 there  are  limitations  upon  such  power  which  grow 
out  of  the  essential  nature  of  all  free  governments,18  and  an 
act  of  the  legislature  contrary  to  the  great  first  principles  of 
the  social  compact  cannot  be  deemed  a  rightful  exercise  of 
legislative  authority.19  Accordingly,  while  the  constitution 
does  not  forbid  Congress  to  pass  laws  impairing  the  obligation 
of  contracts,20  yet  an  act  passed  for  the  purpose  of  impairing 
contract  obligations  would  be  void.21  Constitutional  provisions 
intended  as  securities  for  the  rights  of  the  people  may  operate 

13  N.  R.  Steamboat  Co.  v.  Livingston,  3  Cow.  713;  Thayer  v. 
Hedges,  23  Ind.  141. 

14  Interstate  Commerce  Com.  v.  Brimson,  154  U.  S.  486,  14  S.  Ct. 
1]25,  38  L.  ed.   1047. 

IB  Thayer  v.  Hedges,  23  Ind.  141. 

16  Wayman  v.  Southard,  10  Wheat.  50,  6  L.  ed.  253;  Hartford  Fire 
Ins.  Co.  v.  Doyle,  6  Biss.  465,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6160. 

17  Fletcher  v.  Peck,  6  Cr.  135,  3  L.  ed.  162;  Satterlee  v.  Matthew- 
son,  2  Pet.  413,  7  L.  ed.  458;  Kelly  v.  Pittsburg,  85  Pa.  St.  182,  27  Am. 
Rep.  639. 

18  Citizens'  S.  &  L.  Assn.  v.  Topeka,  20  Wall.  663,  22  L.  ed.  455. 

19  Calder  v.  Bull,  3  Dall.  388,  1  L.  ed.  648;  Poindexter  v.  Greenhow, 
114  U.  S.  297,  5  S.  Ct.  918,  29  L.  ed.  185;  Wilder  v.  Chicago  etc.  R.  R., 
70  Mich.  385,  38  N.  W.  290;  Janesville  v.  Carpenter,  77  Wis.  303, 
20  am.  St.  Bep.  134,  46  N.  W.  132,  8  L.  R.  A.  808. 

20  Satterlee  v.  Matthewson,  2  Pet.  380,  7  L.  ed.  458;  Legal  Tender 
.  12  Wall.  457,  20  L.  ed.  287. 

21  Legal  Tender  Cases,  12  Wall.  457,  20  L.  ed.  287;  Bloomer  v. 
Stolley,  5  McLean,  158,  Fed.  Cas.  A'o.  1559. 


79  Powers  of  Congress.         Art.  I.  §  8,  CI.  1 

as  limitations  on  legislative  power.22  A  limitation  of  a  power 
argues  the  existence  of  that  power,  and  an  exception  from  a 
power  marks  its  extent.23 

Delegation  of  Powers. 


Powers  belonging  strictly  to  one  of  the  co-ordinate  branches 
of  government  cannot  be  delegated  to  another  branch,  but  Con- 
gress may  delegate  powers  not  strictly  legislative  which  it  may 
rightfully  exercise  itself.24  Accordingly  Congress  may  confer 
upon  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  power  to  make  customs  and 
revenue  regulations  and  to  determine  cases  under  them;25  may 
grant  to  the  Secretary  of  War  power  to  supervise  government 
work,26  and  may  authorize  the  supreme  court  to  prescribe  rules 
of  evidence.27  But  Congress  cannot  delegate  power  to  the 
President  to  make  a  law  with  discretion  as  to  what  it  shall  be, 
although  it  may  confer  upon  him  discretion  as  to  the  execution 
of  a  law.28  An  act  making  it  a  crime  to  violate  any  rule  there- 
after to  be  made  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  for  the  pro- 
tection of  forest  reserves  is  void  as  an  attempted  delegation  of 
legislative  power  to  an  administrative  office.29 

Although  Congress  cannot  authorize  a  state  to  legislate,  it 
may  adopt  state  legislation;30  it  may  divest  designated  articles 
of  their  interstate  commerce  character  and  subject  them  to  the 
operation  of  state  laws,31  and  may  authorize  state  officers  to 
perform  duties  merely  incidental  to  judicial  power.32 

22  Atchison  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Denver  etc.  E,  E.,  110  U.  S.  679,  4  S.  Ct. 
185,  28  L.  ed.  291. 

23  Gibbons  v.  Ogden,  9  Wheat.  191,  6  L.  ed.  23;  State  v.  Cunning- 
ham, 83  Wis.  155,  35  Am.  St.  Eep.  59,  53  N.  W.  53,  17  L.  E.  A.  145. 

24  Wayman  v.  Southard,  10  Wheat.  43,  6  L.  ed.  253. 

25  In  re  Kollock,  165  U.  S.  537,  17  S.  Ct.  444,  41  L.  ed.  813. 

26  United  States  v.  Ormsbee,  74  Fed.  209. 

27  White  v.  Toledo  etc.  E.  E.,  79  Fed.  135. 

28  Field  v.  Clark,  143  U.  S.  693,  12  S.  Ct.  495,  36  L.  ed.  294. 

29  United   States  v.  Blasingame,  116  Fed.  654. 

30  Gibbons  v.  Ogden,  9  Wheat.  1,  6  L.  ed.  23. 

31  In  re  Eohrer,  140  U.  S.  556,  11  S.  Ct.  865,  35  L.  ed.  572;  En  die- 
man  v.  United  States,  86  Fed.  460;   Stevens  v.  Ohio,  93  Fed.   795. 

32  Eobertson  v.  Baldwin,  165  U.  S.  279,  17  S.  Ct.  326,  41  L.  ed.  715. 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  1  Taxing  Power.  80 

Taxation — Definitions. 

A  tax  is  a  rate  or  sum  of  money  assessed  on  the  person  or 
property  of  a  citizen  by  the  government  for  the  use  of  the 
nation  or  state;33  a  charge  for  the  support  of  government,34 
to  raise  money  for  public  purposes.35  The  obligation  to  pay 
rests,  not  upon  the  privileges  enjoyed  or  the  protection 
given  to  a  citizen,  but  upon  the  necessity  of  money  for  the  sup- 
port of  government,30  but  the  citizen  receives  compensation 
therefor  in  privileges  and  protection.37  A  tax  is  not  a  toll;  a 
tax  is  a  demand  of  sovereignty,  while  a  toll  is  a  demand  of 
proprietorship.38 

Nature  and  Extent  of  Power. 


The  power  to  tax  rests  upon  necessity  and  is  an  incident 
and  attribute  of  sovereignty.39  It  is  an  essential  function  of 
ament  necessary  to  the  existence  of  the  nation.40  Being 
an  incident  of  sovereignty,  the  taxing  power  is  coextensive  with 
sovereignty,41  and  the  power  of  the  United  States  within  its 
sphere  is  coextensive  with  its  territory.42 

33  Loan  Assn.  v.  Topeka,  20  Wall.  664,  22  L.  ed.  455;  Illinois  Cent. 
Ry.  v.  Decatur,  147  U.  S.  198,  13  S.  Ct.  293,  37  L.  ed.  132. 

34  United  States  v.  Railroad  Co.,  17  Wall.  326,  21  L.  ed.  597;  City 
of  Camden  v.  Allen,  26  N.  J.  L.  398;  Glascow  v.  Rowse,  43  Mo.  489. 

80  Loan  Assn.  v.  Topeka,  20  Wall.  664,  22  L.  ed.  455;  Cole  v.  La 
Grange,  113  U.  S.  9,  5  S.  Ct.  416,  28  L.  ed.  896;  State  v.  Osawakee 
Township,  14  Kan.  420,  19  Am.  Rep.  100;  In  re  Mayor  of  New  York, 
11  Johns.  SO. 

CO  Dobbins  v.  Commissioners,  16  Pet.  445,  10  L.  ed.  1022;  Van 
Brocklin  v.  Tennessee,  117  U.  S.  159,  6  S.  Ct.  670,  29  L.  ed.  845. 

37  County  of  Mobile  v.  Kimball,  102  U.  S.  703,  26.  L.  ed.  238. 

38  Case  of  State  Freight  Tax,  15  Wall.  278,  21  L.  ed.  146;  St. 
Louis  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  148  U.  S.  97,  13  S.  Ct.  487,  37  L.  ed. 
380. 

39  Dobbins  v.  Commissioners,  16  Pet.  435,  10  L.  ed.  1022;  Bailey 
v.  Magwire,  22  Wall.  215,  22  L.  ed.  850. 

»0   Lane  County  v.  Oregon,  7  Wall.  76,  19  L.  ed.  101. 
41   Brown  v.  Maryland,  12  Wheat.  448,  6  L.  ed.  678. 
4  2  Loughborough  v.  Blake,  5  Wheat.  319,  5  L.  ed.  98;   Gibbons  v. 
i  ,  9  Wheat.  199,  6  L.  ed.  23;  Providence  Bank  v.  Billings,  4  Pet. 
563,  7  L.  ed.  939. 


81  Taxing  Power.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  1 

The  power  may  be  exercised  on  the  subjects  to  which  it  is  ap- 
plicable to  the  utmost  extent  to  which  the  government  may 
choose  to  carry  it.43  If  the  right  exists  it  is  unlimited,44  and 
while  it  should  not  be  arbitrarily  exercised,45  the  fact  that  the 
power  is  liable  to  abuse  is  no  proof  of  its  nonexistence.46  The 
power  to  tax  is  the  power  to  destroy,  and  the  only  security 
against  unwise  legislation  is  the  wisdom  and  justice  of  the 
legislative  body.47 

Boundaries  of  State  and  Federal  Powers. 


The  power  of  taxation  conferred  by  this  clause  does  not  oper- 
ate as  a  prohibition  upon  the  states;48  it  is  original  with  the 
states,  has  never  been  surrendered  by  them,49  and  exists  inde- 
pendent of  the  federal  government.50  While  the  power  is 
common  to  both  state  and  federal  governments,51  and  the  grant 

43  McCulloch  v.  Maryland  4  Wheat.  428,  4  L.  ed.  579;  Spencer  v. 
Merchant,  125  U.  S.  355,  8  S.  Ct.  926,  31  L.  ©d.  763;  Stockton  etc. 
E,  B,  v.  Stockton,  41  Cal.  166;  People  v.  Fitch,  148  N.  Y.  78,  42 
N.  E.  520. 

44  Weston  v.  Charleston,  2  Pet.  466.  7  L.  ed.  481;  Austin  v.  Alder- 
men, 7  Wall.  699,  19  L.  ed.  224;  Davis  v.  Eichardson,  45  Miss.  503, 
7  Am.  Eep.  733. 

45  Parsons  v.  District  of  Columbia,  170  U.  S.  51,  18  S.  Ct.  521,  42 
L.  ed.  943. 

4  6  Wiggins  Ferry  Co.  v.  East  St.  Louis,  107  U.  S.  377,  2  S.  Ct. 
257,  24  L.  ed.  419;  Postal  etc.  Cable  Co.  v.  Charleston,  153  U.  S.  695, 
14  S.  Ct.  1096,  38  L.  ed.  871. 

47  Providence  Bank  v.  Billings,  4  Pet.  563,  7  L.  ed.  939;  Kirtlaud 
v.  Hotchkiss,  100  U.  S.  498,  25  L.  ed.  558;  Spencer  v.  Merchant,  125 
TJ.  S.  355,  8  S.  Ct.  926,  31  L.  ed.  763. 

48  Passenger  Cases,  7  How.  571,  12  L.  ed.  702;  Pervear  v.  Common- 
wealth, 5  Wall.  475,  18  L.  ed.  608;  Van  Allen  v.  Assessors,  3  Wall. 
585,  IS  L.   ed.   229. 

49  Thomson  v.  Pacific  E.  E.,  9  Wall.  591,  29  L.  ed.  105;  Hender- 
son Br.  Co.  v.  Henderson  City,  173  U.  S.  623,  19  S.  Ct.  565,  43  L.  ed. 
■823;  First  Nat.  Bank  v.  Peterborough,  56  N.  H.  42,  22  Am.  Eep. 
421. 

50  State  Tonnage  Tax  Cases,  12  Wall.  212,  20  L.  ed.  370;  Trans- 
portation Co.  v.  Wheeling,  99  U.  S.  277,  25  L.  ed.  412,  affirming  9  W. 
Va.  178,  27  Am.  Eep.  554. 

51  License  Cases,  5  How.  588,  12  L.  ed.  256;  Bettman  v.  Warwick, 
108  Fed.  46. 

Notes  on  Constitution — 6 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  1  Taxing  Poweb.  82 

to  Congress  does  not  supersede  the  power  of  the  state,52  yet  this 
clause  vests  power  in  Congress  independent  of  any  state  con- 
trol,M  and  in  case  of  conflict  between  state  and  federal  laws 
the  latter  must  prevail.64  On  the  other  hand,  the  power  of  the 
slates  is  inherent  and  not  derived  from  the  constitution,55  and 
ii  cannot  I"'  interfered  with  by  congressional  action.56  Except 
a-  restricted  by  the  constitution  states  have  power  of  taxation 
over  all  subjects,57  and  as  to  subjects  over  which  the  states  have 
general  power  of  legislation,  their  power  to  tax  is  supreme,578 
The  taxing  power  of  a  state  is  limited  to  its  territorial  juris- 
ts State  Tonnage  Tax  Cases,  12  Wall.  214,  20  L.  ed.  370. 

53  Ableman  v.  Booth,  21  How.  516,  16  L.  ed.  169;  Ward  v.  Mary- 
land, 12  Wall.  427,  20  L.  ed.  449. 

54  Railroad  Go.  v.  Peniston,  18  Wall.  29,  21  L.  ed.  787. 

55  McCulloeh  v.  Maryland,  4  Wheat.  316,  4  L.  ed.  579;  Lane 
County  v.  Oregon,  7  Wall.  77,  19  L.  ed.  101;  Eailroad  Co.  v.  Peniston, 
18  Wall.  29,  21  L.  ed.  787;  Nathan  v.  Louisiana,  8  How.  73;  People 
v.  Coleman,  4  Gal.  46,  60  Am.  Dec.  581;  State  v.  Harrington,  68  Vt. 
628,  35  Atl.  517,  34  L.  E.  A.  100. 

so  Railroad  Co.  v.  Peniston,  18  Wall.  30,  21  L.  ed.  787. 

57  Lane  County  v.  Oregon,  7  Wall.  71,  19  L.  ed.  101;  Ward  v.  Mary- 
Iand,  12  Wall.  430,  20  L.  ed.  449;  Loan  Assn.  v.  Topeka,  20  Wall. 
669,  22  L.  ed.  455;  Pullan  v.  Kinsinger,  2  Abb.  U.  S.  110,  Fed.  Gas. 
No.  11,463;  Van  Brocklin  v.  Tennessee,  117  TJ.  S.  176,  6  S.  Ct.  684, 
29  L.  cd.  84.1;  New  Oricans  v.  Claik,  95  TJ.  S.  654,  24  L.  ed.  521;  Cen- 
tral Pac.  R.  R.  v.  California,  162  U.  S.  121,  16  S.  Ct.  777,  40  L.  ©a. 
903;  Rubotham  v.  McClure,  4  Blackf.  505;  Hawkins  v.  Lawrence, 
8  Blackf.  226;  Clark  v.  Saybrook,  21  Conn.  313;  Russell  v.  New  York, 

2  Denio,  461;  People  v.  Commissioners,  5  Denio,  401;  Raleigh  etc. 
Co.  v.  Davis,  2  Dev.  &  B.  451;  Swan  v.  Williams,  2  Mich.  442;  Baker 
v.  Johnson,  2  Hill,  342;  State  v.  Philadelphia  etc.  R.  R.,  45  Md.  378, 
24  Am  Rep.  513;  Carlisle  v.  Pullman  Co.,  8  Colo.  327,  7  Pac.  168; 
Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Mayer,  28  Ohio  St.  533;  Bloodgood  v.  Mo- 
hawk Co.,  18  Wend.  9,  31  Am.  Dec.  313. 

57a  McCulloch  v.  Maryland,  4  Wheat.  429,  4  L.  ed.  579;  Gibbons  v. 
Ogden,  9  Wheat.  199,  6  L.  ed.  23;  Hamilton  County  v.  Massachusetts, 
6  Wall.  639,  18  L.  ed.  904;  Nevada  Bank  v.  Sedgwick,  104  TJ.  S.  Ill, 
26  L.  ed.  703;  Hagar  v.  Reclamation  Dist.,  Ill  TJ.  S.  709,  4  S.  Ct. 
C63,  28  L.  ed.  569;  Bettman  v.  Warwick,  108  Fed.  46;  St.  Albans  v. 
'  lo.,  57  Vt.  85;  People  v.  Mayor,  4  N.  Y.  425;  People  v.  Hawley, 

3  Mich.  33U;  Armington  v.  Barnet,  15  Vt.  749,  11  Am.  Dec.  705. 


83  Taxing  Power.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  1 

diction,58  but  it  will  not  be  presumed  that  a  statute  contemplates 
taxation  of  subjects  beyond  the  territory  of  the  state.59 

Taxation  of  Governmental  Agencies. 

Implied  constitutional  restrictions  upon  the  taxing  power 
are  as  effectual  as  those  expressed.60  Such  an  implied  restric- 
tion prevents  the  taxation  of  an  instrumentality  of  the  federal 
government  by  the  states  and  of  a  state  agency  by  the  federal 
government;61  no  such  power  on  the  part  of  the  United  States 
can  be  drawn  from  the  words  "welfare  of  the  United  States."*62 
Accordingly,  Congress  cannot  tax  the  revenues  of  a  municipal 
corporation,63  nor  impose  a  tax  upon  the  salaries  of  state  offi- 
cials64 or  judges,65  or  upon  official  bonds  of  state  officers.66  An 
act  of  Congress  requiring  a  revenue  stamp  to  be  affixed  to 
process  in  state  courts  is  void,67  and  while  Congress  may  provide 
for  the  stamping  of  certain  instruments,  a  contract  not  stamped 
as  required  cannot  be  excluded  as  evidence  on  that  ground.68 

The  states  cannot  tax  the  means  and  instruments  employed 

58  The  Delaware  E.  E.  Tax,  18  Wall.  229,  21  L.  ed.  888;  New  York 
etc.  E.  E.  v.  Pennsylvania,  153  U.  S.  646,  14  S.  Ct.  958,  38  L.  ed. 
846 j  State  Tax  on  Foreign  Held  Bonds,  15  Wall.  319,  21  L.  ed.  179. 

59  Pittsburgh  etc.  Ey.  v.  Backus,  154  U.  S.  428,  14  S.  CT.  1114,  38 
L.  ed.  1031;  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Taggart,  163  U.  S.  20,  16 
S.  CT.  1060,  41  L.  ed.  49,  affirming  141  Ind.  90,  40  N.  E.  1053. 

60  Ward  v.  Maryland,  12  Wall.  427,  20  L.  ed.  449. 

61  Collector  v.  Day,  11  Wall.  124,  30  L.  ed.  122;  Van  Brocklin  v. 
Tennessee,  117  U.  S.  177,  8  S.  Ct.  684,  20  L.  ed.  845;  Pollock  v. 
Farmers '  L.  &  T.  Co.,  157  U.  S.  584,  15  S.  Ct.  690,  39  L.  ed.  759. 

62  United  States  v.  Eailroad  Co.,  17  Wall.  322,  21  L.  ed.  597. 

63  United  States  v.  Eailroad  Co.,  17  Wall.  322,  21  L.  ed.  597; 
Pollock  v.  Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.,  157  U.  S.  584,  15  S.  Ct.  690,  39  L. 
ed.  759. 

64  Ward  v.  Maryland,  12  Wall.  427,  20  L.  ed.  449. 

65  Collector  v.  Day,  11  Wall.  122,  30  L.  ed.  122;  Day  v.  Buffinton, 
3  Cliff.  388,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3675;  Friedman  v.  Sigel,  10  Blatchf.  328, 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  5080. 

66  State  v.  Gorton,  32  Ind.  5,  2  Am.  Eep.  318. 

67  Filield  v.  Close,  15  Mich.  508;  Jones  v.  Keep,  19  Wis.  376; 
Tucker  v.  Potter,  35  Conn.  46. 

6S  Davis  v.  Eichardson,  45  Miss.  503,  7  Am.  Eep.  734. 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  1  Taxing  Power.  84 

by  the  general  government  in  the  exorcise  of  its  functions,09 
or  the  instruments,  emoluments  or  persons,  and  the  necessary 
and  proper  means  to  execute  its  sovereign  power.70  So  the 
property  of  the  United  States  is  exempt  from  state  taxation,71 
and  the  exemption  extends  to  federal  buildings  erected  upon 
private  land72  and  to  unsurveyed  lands,73  and  lands  upon  which 
United  States  holds  a  lien  for  survey  fees.74  While  these  are 
exempt,  a  state  may  tax  the  property  of  government  agents.75 
The  salary  of  a  United  States  officer  is  not  taxable  by  a  state,70 
but  a  state  court  has  declared  that  a  postoffice  clerk  is  not  an 
officer,  and  his  salary  was  subject  to  a  state  income  tax.77  A 
person  licensed  under  federal  revenue  laws  is  not  an  "officer"' 
□apt  from  taxation.78 

National  banks  are  agencies  of  the  federal  government,  and 
shares  and  capital  stock  in  such  banks  are  not  taxable  by  the 

69  McCulloch  v.  Maryland,  4  Wheat.  316;  Van  Allen  v.  Assessors, 

3  Wall.  591,  IS  L.  ed.  229;  Austin  v.  Aldermen,  7  Wall.  €94,  19  L.  ed. 
224;  Banks  v.  Mayor,  7  Wall.  16,  19  L.  ed.  57;  Hamilton  Co.  v. 
Massachusetts,  6  Wall.  639,  18  L.  ed.  904;  People  v.  Commissioners, 

4  Wall.  244,  18  L.  ed.  344;  Osborn  v.  Bank,  9  Wheat.  738,  6  L.  ed. 
204;  Farmers'  etc.  Nat.  Bank  v.  Dealing,  91  U.  S.  34,  23  L.  ed.  196; 
National  etc.  Bank  v.  Mayor,  62  Ala.  292,  34  Am.  Bep.  18. 

70  Dobbins  v.  Commissioners,  16  Pet.  435,  10  L.  ed.  1022;  Low  v. 
Austin,  13  Wall.  35,  20  L.  ed.  517. 

71  Van  Brocklin  v.  Tennessee,  117  U.  S.  178,  8  S.  Ct.  684,  29  L.  ed. 
845;  Wisconsin  K.  E.  v.  Price  County,  133  TJ.  S.  504,  10  S.  Ct.  344, 
33  L.  ed.  687;  Bannon  v.  Burnes,  39  Fed.  898;  Commonwealth  v. 
Morrison,  2  A.  K.  Marsh,  75;  City  v.  Churchill,  36  N.  Y.  693;  Fagan 
v.  Illinois,  84  111.  233. 

72  Andrews  v.  Auditor,  28  Gratt.  127. 

73  State  v.  Central  Pac.  E.  E.,  21  Nev.  269,  30  Pac.  692. 

74  Tyler  County,  1  N.  Dak.  382,  48  N.  W.  233. 

75  Railroad  Co.  v.  Peniston,  IS  Wall.  5,  21  L.  ed.  787;  Central  Pac. 
E.  E.  v.  California,  162  U.  S.  125,  16  S.  Ct.  779,  40  L.  ed.  903. 

76  Dobbins  v.  Commissioners,  16  Pet.  450,  10  L.  ed.  1022. 

77  Meleher  v.  Boston,  9  Met.  75. 

78  State  v.  Bell,  Thill.  (N.  C.)  90;  and  see  License  Cases,  5  How. 
504,  12  L.  ed.  256. 


85  Taxing  Power.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  1 

states,79  except  as  allowed  by  act  of  Congress.so  So,  also, 
United  States  securities  are  instruments  of  the  federal  govern- 
ment and  the  states  cannot  tax  them  in  any  way;81  but  the 
fact  that  the  capital  stock  of  a  corporation  is  invested  in  United 
States  bonds  does  not  exempt  it  from  taxation.82  Internal 
revenue  stamps  are  not  subject  to  state  taxation.83 

The  exemption  of  these  governmental  agencies  depends,  how- 
ever, solely  upon  the  effect  of  the  tax — whether  it  deprives  them 
of  the  power  to  serve  the  government  as  intended;84  if  a  tax 
only  remotely  affects  the  efficient  exercise  of  those  powers  it  is 
not  void.85  A  tax  upon  the  property  of  a  railroad  employed  by 
the  federal  government  does  not  impair  the  exercise  of  its 
powers  ;86  nor  does  a  tax  upon  the  property  of  a  telegraph  com- 
pany transmitting  government  messages;87  but  a  state  cannot 

79  McCulloieh  v.  Maryland,  4  Wheat.  439,  4  L.  ed.  579;  Osborn  v. 
United  States  Bank,  9  Wheat.  859,  6  L.  ed.  204;  Owensboro  Bank  v. 
Owensboro,  173  U.  S.  607,  19  S.  Ct.  537,  43  L.  ed.  850;  Second  Nat. 
Bank  v.  Caldwell,  13  Fed.  433;  Carthage  v.  Bank,  71  Mo.  509,  36  Am. 
Rep.  495:  Pittsburg  v.  Bank,  55  Pa.  St.  48. 

80  Talbot  v.  Silver  Bow  County,  139  U.  S.  440,  11  S.  Ct.  595,  35 
L.  ed.  210;  Pollard  v.  State,  65  Ala.  630;  Bank  of  Albia  v.  Albia,  86 
Iowa,  37,  52  N.  W.  336. 

81  Weston  v.  Charleston,  2  Pet.  467,  469,  7  L.  ed.  481;  Bank  of 
Commerce  v.  New  York,  2  Black,  632,  17  L.  ed.  451;  Van  Allen  v. 
Assessors,  3  Wall.  590,  18  L.  ed.  229;  Grether  v.  Wright,  75  Fed. 
753. 

82  Home  Ins.  Co.  v.  New  York,  131  U.  S.  598,  10  S.  Ct.  594,  33 
L.  ed.  1025. 

S3  Palfrey  v.  Boston,  101  Mass.  329. 

84  Railroad  Co.  v.  Peniston,  18  Wall.  36,  21  L.  ed.  787;  Thomson 
v.  Pacific  R.  R.,  9  Wall.  591,  19  L.  ed.  792;  National  Bank  v.  Com- 
monwealth, 9  Wall.  359,  19  L.  ed.  701. 

85  Railroad  Co.  v.  Peniston,  18  Wall.  30,  21  L.  ed.  787;  Western 
Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Massachusetts,  125  U.  S.  549,  8  S.  Ct.  964,  31  L.  ed. 
790;  Broadhead  v.  Milwaukee,  19  Wis.  624,  8S  Am.  Dec.   711. 

86  Railroad  Co.  v.  Peniston,  18  Wall.  36,  21  L.  ed.  787;  Central 
Pac.  R.  R.  v.  California,  162  U.  S.  119,  16  S.  Ct.  776,  40  L.  ed.  903. 

87  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Massachusetts,  125  U.  S.  549,  8  S.  Ct. 
964,  31  L.  ed.  790. 


Art  I,  §  s.  CI.  1  Taxing  Power.  86 

tax  a  franchise  granted  to  a  railroad  by  Congress.88     United 
Statea  mail  carriages  are  exempt  from  state  taxation.89 

The  granting  of  patents  is  an  exclusive  power  of  the  federal 
government,  ami  any  interference  with  it  by  state  taxation  is 
void;90  but  a  tax  upon  the  tangible  property  embodying  a  pat- 
tut  does  nut  impair  rights  under  the  patent,91  nor  does  a  tax 
upon  capital  Invested  in  the  manufacture  of  patented  articles.92 

Taxes,  Duties,  Imposts  and  Excises. 

The  constitution  uses  "duties,  imposts  and  excises"  in  a 
natural  sense,  and  in  antithesis  to  "direct  taxes."93  "Duties" 
ami  "imposts"  are  synonymous  terms,  and  are  both  definable 
a?  a  tax  levied  upon  articles  imported  from  foreign  countries,94 
while  an  excise  is  an  inland  tax  generally  imposed  upon  manu- 
facturers.05 but  sometimes  upon  consumption  and  upon  retail 
sale.96     "Excise"  is  not  to  be  confused  with  "license."97 

8S  California  v.  Central  Pap.  E.  E.,  127  TJ.  S.  41,  8  S.  Ct.  1081,  32 
L.  ed.  150;  United  States  v.  Stanford,  161  IT.  S.  433,  16  S.  Ct.  584,  40 
L.  ed.  751;  State  v.  Stephens,  146  Mo.  682,  69  Am.  St.  Eep.  937,  4S 
S.  W.  934. 

89  Sea  right,  v.  Stokes,  3  How.  178. 

90  In  re  Sheffield,  64  Fed.  835;  Hollida  v.  Hunt,  70  111.  112,  22  Am. 
Eep.  65;  Commonwealth  v.  Petty,  96  Ky.  458,  29  S.  W.  293;  People 
ex  rel.  v.  Assessors,  156  N.  Y.  420,  51  N.  E.  270. 

91  Webber  v.  Virginia,  103  U.  S.  347.  26  L.  ed.  565. 

92  Crown  Cork  etc.  Co.  v.  State,  87  Md.  699,  67  Am.  St.  Eep.  376, 
40  Atl.  1076 ;  Commonwealth  v.  Edison  etc.  Co.,  145  Pa.  St.  140,  27  Am. 
St.  Eep.  684,  22  Atl.  846;  but  see  People  v.  Assessors,  156  N.  Y.  420, 
51  X.  E.  270. 

63  Pollock  v.  Farmers'  etc.  Co.,  158  U.  S.  619,  622,  15  Sup.  Ct.  Eep. 
912,  39  I.,  ed.  L108;  Nicol  v.  Ames,  173  U.  S.  518,  19  S.  Ct.  586,  43  L. 
ed.   786;  ailirniing  89  Fed.  149. 

!»»  Eylton  v.  LTnited  States,  3  Dall.  171,  1  L.  ed.  556;  United  States 
v.  Tappan,  11  Wheat.  419,  6  L.  ed.  509;  Woodruff  v.  Parham,  8  Wall. 
123,  19  L.  ed.  382;  ilinson  v.  Lott,  8  Wall.  148,  19  L.  ed.  387;  Knowl- 
ton  v.  Moore,  178  U.  S.  41,  20  S.  Ct.  747,  44  L.  ed.  969. 

95  License  Cases,  5  Wall.  462,  18  L.  ed.  497;  Knowlton  v.  Moore,  178 
U.  S.  41,  20  S.  Ct.  747,  44  L.  ed.  969. 

oo  Pacific  Ins.  Co.  v.  Soule,  7  Wall.  445,  19  L.  ed.  95. 

97  License  Cases,  5  Wall.  462,  IS  L.  ed.  497;  Pervear  v.  Common- 
wealth, 5  Wall.  175,  18  L.  ed.  60S. 


87  Taxing  Powee.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  1 

In  the  exercise  of  this  power  to  "lay  and  collect  taxes,  duties, 
imposts,  and  excises,  to  pay  the  debts  and  provide  for  the  com- 
mon defense  and  general  welfare,"  Congress  may  authorize 
the  building  of  custom-houses,  employment  of  revenue  cutters, 
appointment  of  collectors  and  other  officers,  establish  needful 
bureaus,  prescribe  the  time  and  manner  of  payment  and  define 
crimes  and  their  punishment;98  and  may  raise  money  in  any 
manner  not  repugnant  to  the  constitution."  The  words  "to 
pay  the  debts  and  provide  for  the  general  welfare"  do  not,  how- 
ever, confer  any  distinct  and  substantive  power  on  Congress.100 

Subjects  of  the  power  granted  to  Congress  to  levy  and  collect 
excises  are:  manufactures;101  employments  and  occupations;102 
sales;103  banks,104  including  national  banks;105  circulating 
notes  issued  by  states  or  banks  ;106  railroads  and  their  profits  ;107 
express  companies.108  A  succession  tax  is  an  excise  duty  upon 
devolution,  and  may  be  imposed  by  Congress.109 

98  United  States  v.  Rhodes,  1  Abb.  U.  S.  49,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,151. 
09  United  States  v.  Angell,  11  Fed.  34. 
ioo  United  States  v.  Boyer,  85  Fed.  425. 

101  License  Cases,  5  Wall.  474,  475,  18  L.  ed.  497;  United  States  v. 
Singer,  15  Wall.  Ill,  21  L.  ed.  49;  United  States  v.  Three  Tons  of 
Coal,  6  Biss.  400,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,515. 

102  License  Cases,  5  Wall.  470,  18  L.  ed.  497;  Pacific  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Smile,  7  Wall.  446,  19  L.  ed.  95;  United  States  v.  Glab,  99  U.  S.  225, 
25  L.  ed.  273;  Knowlton  v.  Moore,  178  U.  S.  41,  20  S.  Ct.  747,  44  L. 
ed.  969. 

103  Pacific  Ins.  Co.  v.  Soule,  7  Wall.  445,  19  L.  ed.  95;  United 
States  v.  Cutting,  3  Wall.  443,  18  L.  ed.  241;  Warren  v.  Shook,  91 
U.  S.  712,  23  L.  ed.  421;  Northrup  v.  Shook,  10  Blatchf.  254,  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  10,329;  United  States  v.  Angell,  11  Fed.  34. 

104  Bank  for  Savings  v.  Collector,  3  Wall.  495,  18  L.  ed.  207; 
German  Sav.  Bank  v.  Archbold,  15  Blatchf.  402,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4364; 
Oulton  v.  Savings  Inst.,  17  Wall.  118,  21  L.  ed.  618. 

105  Central  etc.  Bank  v.  United  States,  137  U.  S.  355,  11  S.  Ct. 
126,  34  L.  ed.  703;  Sumter  Co.  v.  Gainsville  Nat.  Bank,  62  Ala.  464; 
Pollard  v.  State,  65  Ala.  628. 

106  Barnes  v.  Railroads,  17  Wall.  301,  21  L.  ed.  544;  Springer  v. 
United  States,  102  U.  S.  586,  26  L.  ed.  253. 

107  Improvement  Co.  v.  Slack,  100  U.  S.  648,  25  L.  ed.  609;  Little 
Miami  etc.  R.  R.  v.  United  States,  108  U.  S.  277,  2  S.  Ct.  677,  27  L. 
ed.  724. 

108  Eetzer  v.  Wood,  109  U.  S.  185,  3  S.  Ct.  164,  27  L.  ed.  900. 

109  Scholey  v.  Rew,  23  Wall.  346,  22  L.  ed.  99. 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  1  Taxing  Tower.  88 

Uniformity. 

The  only  limitation  upon  the  power  of  Congress  in  the  im- 
position of  duties,  imposts  and  excises  is  that  they  shall  be 
uniform  throughout  the  United  States/10  and  this  require- 
ment is  not  strictly  a  limitation,  but  prescribes  the  mode  of 
exercise  of  the  power.111  The  uniformity  required  is  not  an 
intrinsic  uniformity  relating  to  the  inherent  character  of  the 
Lax  as  respects  its  operation  on  individuals;  it  is  a  geographi- 
cal uniformity,  requiring  the  same  plan  and  method  to  be  fol- 
lowed throughout  the  United  States.112  That  a  tax  may  affect 
only  one  class  of  persons  is  no  objection  to  it,  if  it  affects  all 
of  that  class  equally,  and  operates  with  the  same  force  in  every 
place  where  the  subject  is  found;113  the  object  of  this  clause 
was  to  protect  states  from  discrimination  by  Congress  which 
would  operate  unfairly  upon  some  states  and  not  equally  upon 
others.11'1  "Throughout  the  United  States"  must  be  understood 
to  mean  the  states  whose  people  united  to  form  the  constitu- 
tion,  and  such  as  have  been  admitted  to  the  Union  upon  an 
equality  with  them;  so  territory  acquired  by  conquest  and  cession 
becomes  appurtenant  to,  but  not  part  of,  the  United  States 
within  the  meaning  of  this  clause.115 

no  License  Cases,  5  Wall.  471,  IS  L.  ed.  497;  United  States  v. 
Singer,  15  Wall.  Ill,  21  L.  ed.  49;  United  St.ites  v.  Three  Tons  of 
(  oal,  6  Biss.  400,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,515;  Pollock  v.  Farmers'  etc.  Co., 
157  U.  S.  593,  15  S.  Ct.  694,  39  L.  ed.  759. 

in   Veazie  Bank  v.  Fenno,  8  Wall.  540. 

112  Knowiton  v.  Moore,  178  U.  S.  41,  20  S.  Ct.  747,  44  L.  ed.  969. 

113  Head  Money  Cases  [Edye  v.  Eobertson],  112  U.  S.  580,  5  S. 
Ct.  247,  28  L.  ed.  798;  State  Board  v.  Central  B.  B.,  48  N.  J.  L.  290, 
4  Atl.  624. 

H4  Downes  v.  Bidwell,  182  U.  S.  243,  21  S.  Ct.  783,  45  L.  ed.  1088. 
115  Downes  v.  Bidwell,  182  U.  S.  243,  21  S.  Ct  783,  45  L.  ed.  1088. 


89  To  Borrow  Money.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  2 

2.     To  borrow  money  on  the  credit  of  the  United 
States. 

The  Power  Generally. 

The  power  of  Congress  to  borrow  money,  thus  expressly 
granted,  is  free  and  unburdened,1  and  includes  the  power  to 
issue  securities  or  evidences  of  debt  for  the  money  borrowed,2 
or  for  capital  and  commodities  of  which  money  is  the  represen- 
tative,3 and  to  issue  treasury  notes.4  "Money"  is  gold  and 
silver,  or  the  lawful  circulating  medium  of  the  country,  and 
includes  bank  notes.5  "On  the  credit  of  the  United  States" 
authorizes  the  issue  of  bills  or  notes  by  the  government  to  cir- 
culate as  money  ;6  for  in  issuing  such  paper  the  government  is  in 
effect  borrowing  on  the  credit  of  these  promises.7  Bills  of 
credit  may  be  issued  by  Congress  under  this  clause,8  and  the 
circulation  of  any  notes  not  issued  by  or  under  the  authority 
of  Congress  may  be  restrained.9 

1  Weston  v.  Charleston,  2  Pet.  465,  7  L.  ed.  481;  Banks  v.  Mayor, 
7  Wall.  23,  19  L.  ed.  57;  Legal  Tender  Cases  [Juillard  v.  Greenman], 
110  U.  S.  444,  4  S.  Ct.  128,  28  L.  ed.  204;  Van  Husen  v.  Kanouse, 
13  Mich.  309;  Schollenberger  v.  Brinton,  52  Pa.  St.  66;  Metropolitan 
Bank  v.  Van  Dyck,  27  N.  Y.  499. 

2  Hepburn  v.  Griswold,  8  Wall.  616,  19  L.  ed.  513 ;  Hague  v.  Powers, 
39  Barb.  Ch.  427;  Thayer  v.  Hedges,  22  Ind.  282;  George  v.  Concord, 
45  N.  H.  434. 

3  Metropolitan  Bank  v.  Van  Dyck,  27  N.  Y.  400. 

4  Thorndike  v.  United  States,  2  Mason,  18,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,9S7; 
Pennsylvania  Cases,  52  Pa.  St.  15;  Metropolitan  Bank  v.  Van  Dyck, 
27  N.  Y.  400. 

5  Mann  v.  Mann,  1  Johns.  Ch.  236;  Ex  parte  Prince,  27  Fla.  203,' 
20  Am.  St.  Kep.  71,  9  South.  660. 

6  Craig  v.  Missouri,  4  Pet.  435,  7  L.  ed.  903;  Legal  Tender  Cases, 
110  U.  S.  442,  4  S.  Ct.  128,  28  L.  ed.  204;  Metropolitan  Bank  v.  Van 
Dyck,  27  N.  Y.  400;  The  Floyd  Acceptances,  7  Wall.  675,  19  L.  ed. 
169. 

1  Metropolitan  Bank  v.  Van  Dyck,  27  N.  Y.  400;  Bank  v.  Super- 
visors, 7  Wall.  26. 

8  Veazie  Bank  v.  Fenno,  8  Wall.  548,  19  L.  ed.  482;  Legal  Tender 
Cases,  12  Wall.  543,  20  L.  ed.  287;  Craig  v.  Missouri,  4  Pet.  435,  7 
L.  ed.  903. 

9  Veazie  Bank  v.  Fenno,  8  Wall.  549,  19  L.  ed.  482;  National  Bank 
v.  United  States,  101  U.  S.  6.  25  L.  ed.  979. 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  2  Legal  Tender.  90 

Legal  Tender. 

The  clauses  granting  to  Congress  power  to  coin  money  (art. 
I,  §  8,  el.  5),  and  prohibiting  the  states  from  emitting  bills 
of  credit  (art.  I,  §  10,  cl.  1),  do  not  impliedly  prohibit  Con- 
gross  from  making  treasury  notes  legal  tender,10  and  while  no 
such  power  is  expressly  granted  by  the  constitution,11  the  au- 
thority is  necessarily  implied12  as  a  means  to  the  exercise  of 
the  functions  of  government.13  It  is  a  necessary  incident 
of  sovereignty.14  If,  in  the  judgment  of  Congress,  it  is  nec- 
essary, in  order  to  enchance  the  credit  of  the  government's 
promises,  it  may  make  them  legal  tender.15  Congress  may 
make  treasury  notes  legal  tender,16  and,  while  such  notes  are 
only  the  representatives  of  money,  they  may  be  made  a  sub- 
stitute therefor.17 

This  power  is  not  to  be  resorted  to  except  upon  extraordinary 
occasions  or  public  exigencies  of  great  importance;18  but  it 
does  not  exist  solely  as  an  incident  of  the  war  power,  and  may 

io  Legal  Tender  Cases,  12  Wall.  547,  20  L.  ed.  287. 
li   Hepburn  v.  Griswold,  8  Wall.  614,  19  L.  ed.  513. 

12  Lick  v.  Faulkner,  25  Cal.  404. 

13  Banks  v.  Mayor,  7  Well.  16,  19  L.  ed.  57;  Juillard  v.  Greenman, 
10  Wall.  439,  28  L.  ed.  204. 

14  Van  Husen  v.  Kanouse,  13  Mick.  303;  Maynard  v.  Newman,  1 
Nev.  271;  George  v.  Concord,  45  N.  H.  434;  Metropolitan  Bank  v. 
Van  Dyck,  27  N.  Y.  400;  Schollenberger  v.  Brinton,  52  Pa.  St.  100; 
Brown  v.  Welch,  26  Ind.  116. 

15  Wood  v.  Butler,  6  Allen,  516;  Hague  v.  Powers,  39  Barb.  Ch. 
427;  Lick  v.  Faulkner,  25  Cal.  404;  Eeynolds  v.  Bank  of  Indiana, 
18  Ind.  467;  Thayer  v.  Hedges,  23  Ind.  141;  Brown  v.  Welch,  26  Ind. 
116;  Horntrager  v.  Bates,  18  Iowa,  174;  Van  Husen  v.  Kanouse,  13 
Mich.  303;  Warmbold  v.  Schlichting,  16  Iowa,  243;  Biddlesbarger  v. 
McDaniel,  38  Mo.  138;  Verges  v.  Giboney,  38  Mo.  458;  Maynard  v. 

Newman,     1    Nev.    271;     Carpenter  v.   Northfield  Bank,   39   Vt.   49; 
Breitenbach  v.  Turner,  18  Wis.  140;  Warner  v.  Sauk  Co.,  20  Wis.  494. 

16  Legal  Tender  Cases,  12  Wall.  457,  20  L.  ed.  2.87;  Juillard  v. 
Greenman,  110  U.  S.  438,  4  S.  Ct.  124,  28  L.  ed.  204;  Dooley  v.  Smith, 
13  Wall.  604,  20  L.  ed.  547;  Eailroad  Co.  v.  Johnson,  15  Wall.  195, 
21  L.  ed.  178;  United  States  v.  B.eese,  92  U.  S.  253,  23  L.  ed.  563; 
Bissell  v.  Heyward,  96  U.  S.  587,  24  L.  ed.  67S. 

17  Metropolitan  Bank  v.  Van  Dyck,  27  N.  Y.  426. 
is  Legal  Tender  Cases,  12  Wall.  457,  20  L.  ed.  287. 


91  •  Legal  Tender.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  2 

be  exercised  in  time  of  peace  or  war.19  Debts  contracted  be- 
fore, as  well  as  after  the  passage  of  the  legal  tender  acts  are 
payable  in  treasury  notes,20  and  those  acts  do  not  impair  the 
obligation  of  contracts.21  Where  "the  contract  is  to  pay  in  a 
particular  kind  of  money,  as  "gold"  or  "specie,"  it  cannot 
be  discharged  in  legal  tender  notes;22  but  where  the  covenant 
is  to  pay  in  "lawful  money,"  in  "gold  or  its  equivalent,"  or  in 
"specie  or  its  equivalent,"  it  is  deemed  to  be  one  for  the  pay- 
ment of  any  kind  of  money  which  is  legal  tender.23  The 
"debts"  contemplated  by  the  legal  tender  cases  are  debts  aris- 
ing on  contract  and  demand  and  do  not  include  taxes.24 

Effect  on  States'  Taxing  Power. 

The  power  to  issue  securities  being  an  incident  of  the  power 
to  borrow  money,  the  securities  thus  issued  are  clearly  instru- 
ments of  the  federal  government  exempt  from  state  taxation.25 

19  Juillard  v.  Greenman,  110  U.  S.  436,  4  S.  Ct.  124,  28  L.  ed.  204. 

20  Legal  Tender  Cases,  12  Wall.  553,  20  L.  ed.  287  [overruling 
Hepburn  v.  Griswold,  8  Wall.  607,  19  L.  ed.  513];  Dooley  v.  Smith, 
13  Wall.  606,  20  L.  ed.  547;  Juillard  v.  Greenman,  110  U.  S.  438,  4 
Sup.  Ct.  124,  28  L.  ed.  204;  McElderry  v.  Jones,  67  Ala.  205;  People 
v.  Cook,  44  Cal.  640;  Black  v.  Lusk,  69  111.  76;  Belford  v.  Woodward, 
158  111.  129,  41  N.  E.  1099,  29  L.  E.  A.  593;  Bowen  v.  Clark,  46  Ind. 
410;  Wells  v.  Bobb.  9  Bush,  32. 

21  Faw  v.  Marsteller,  2  Cr.  32,  2  L.  ed.  191;  Legal  Tender  Cases, 
12  Wall.  553,  20  L.  ed.  287;  Juillard  v.  Greenman,  110  U.  S.  438,  4 
S.  Ct.  124,  28  L.  ed.  204. 

22  Bronson  v.  Rodes,  7  Wall.  250,  19  L.  ed.  141;  Butler  v.  Horwitz, 
7  Wall.  25S,  19  L.  ed.  149;  Hepburn  v.  Griswold,  8  Wall.  607,  19  L. 
ed.  513;  Gregory  v.  Morris,  96  U.  S.  625,  24  L.  ed.  740;  Dutton  v. 
Palairet,  154  U.  S.  563,  14  S.  Ct.  1200;  Dewing  v.  Sears,  11  Wall.  380, 
20  L.  ed.  189;  Trebilcock  v.  Wilson,  12  Wall.  695,  20  L.  ed.  460; 
McGoon  v.  Shirk,  54  111.  411,  5  Am.  Bep.  124;  Churchman  v.  Martin, 
54  Ind.  384. 

23  United  States  v.  Webster,  2  Ware  (Dav.),  48,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
16,658;  Davis  v.  Burton,  52  Pa.  St.  9;  Reese  v.  Stearns,  29  Cal.  273; 
Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.  v.  Van  Sickle,  6  Nev.  46;  Jones  v.  Smith,  48  Barb. 
552;  Atkinson  v.  Lainer,  69  Ga.  460. 

24  Lane  County  v.  Oregon,  7  Wall.  79,  19  L.  ed.  101;  Hagar  v. 
Eeclamation  Dist.,  Ill  U.  S.  706,  4  S.  Ct.  766,  28  L.  ed.  569;  Whitaker 
v.  Haley,  2  Or.  128;  Illinois  v.  Wright,  28  111.  509. 

25  McCulloch  v.  Maryland,  4  Wheat.  439,  4  L.  ed.  579;  Weston  v. 
Charleston,  2  Pet.  449,  7  L.  ed.  481;  Bank  of  Commerce  v.  New  York, 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  2     Taxation  of  Securities. 


92 


This  immunity  from  state  taxation  extends  to  all  government 
securities,  such  as  certificates  of  indebtedness  given  in  payment 
for  supplies,26  United  States  bonds,27  stock  of  the  United  States 
issued  as  security  for  its  indebtedness,28  government  notes.29 
The  income  derived  from  interest  paid  on  government  bonds  is 
also  exempt  from  taxation.30  So,  also,  a  state  cannot  tax  the 
capital  stock  of  a  corporation  invested  in  federal  securities;31 
but  shares  of  stock  in  such  a  corporation  may  be  taxed  in  the 
hands  of  individual  holders.32 

A  distinction  is  to  be  drawn  between  a  tax  upon  property  and 
a  tax  upon  franchises,33  and  while  a  state  cannot  tax  capital  or 
property  invested  in  federal  securities,  a  tax  upon  franchises 
based  upon  capital  is  valid,  notwithstanding  that  capital  is  in- 

2  Black,  629,  17  L.  ed.  451;  Bank  Tax  Cases,  2  Wall.  200,  17  L.  ed.  793; 
Van  Allen  v.  Assessors,  3  Wall.  573,  18  L.  ed.  229;  People  v.  Commis- 
sioners, 4  Wall.  244,  18  L.  ed.  344;  Hamilton  Co.  v.  Massachusetts, 

6  Wall.  G39,  18  L.  ed.  904;  Society  for  Savings  v.  Coite,  6  Wall.  604, 
18  L.  ed.  S97;  Austin  v.  Aldermen,  7  Wall.  699,  19  L.  ed.  224;  Grether 
v.  Wright,  75  Fed.  753;  State  v.  City   of  Newark,  39  N.  J.  L.  382. 

26  Banks  v.  Mayor,  7  Wall.  23,  19  L.  ed.  57;  Bank  v.  Supervisors, 

7  Wall.  30,  19  L.  ed.  60;  State  v.  Haight,  34  N.  J.  L.  130. 

27  Bank  of  Commerce  v.  New  York,  2  Black,  632,  17  L.  ed.  451; 
Grether  v.  Wright,  75  Fed.  753;  Chicago  v.  I/unt,  52  111.  414;  Newark 
City  Bank  v.  Assessor,  30  N.  J.  L.  13. 

28  Weston  v.  Charleston,  2  Pet.  469,  7  L.  ed.  481;  Bank  of  Com- 
merce v.  New  York,  2  Black,  629,  17  L.  ed.  451;  Banks  v.  Mayor,  7 
Wall.  24,  19  L.  ed.  57. 

29  Bank  v.  Supervisors,  7  Wall.  30,  19  L.  ed.  60;  Mitchell  v.  Board, 
91  U.  S.  208;  Ogden  v.  Walker,  59  Ind.  464;  Shotwell  v.  Moore,  45 
Ohio  St.  640,  16  N.  E.  471. 

30  Bank  of  Kentucky  v.  Commonwealth,  4  Bush  (Ky.),  48;  Opin- 
ion of  Justices,  53  N.  H.  636. 

31  Bank  of  Commerce  v.  New  York,  2  Black,  628,  17  L.  ed.  451; 
Hank  Tax  Case,  2  Wall.  210,  17  L.  ed.  793;  Van  Allen  v.  Assessors,  3 
Wall.  592,  18  L.  ed.  229;  Maguire  v.  Board,  71  Ala.  420;  Mutual  Life 
Ins.  Co.  v.  Haight,  34  N.  J.  L.  130;  Wright  v.  Stills,  27  Ind.  341; 
State  v.  Rogers,  79  Mo.  291. 

32  Provident  Inst.  v.  Massachusetts,  6  Wall.  629,  18  L.  ed.  907; 
Palmer  v.  McMahon,  133  U.  S.  666,  10  S.  Ct.  326,  33  L.  ed.  772;  Stet- 
son v.  Bangor,  56  Me.  279;  People  v.  Commissioners,  35  N.  Y.  426; 
Frazier  v.  Seibern,  16  Ohio  St.  622. 

33  Bank  Tax  Case,  2  Wail.  210.  17  L.  ed.  793. 


93  Taxation  of  Securities.      Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  2 

vested  in  United  States  bonds.34  A  statute  requiring  savings 
banks  to  pay  a  tax  of  a  certain  percentage  upon  the  amount  of 
their  deposits  is  a  franchise  tax.35  A  tax  upon  inheritance  and 
legacies  is  not  upon  property,  but  upon  its  transmission.36 
Accordingly,  a  state  inheritance  tax  law  applies  to  legacies  of 
United  States  securities.37 

National  banks  being  agents  of  the  federal  government,  their 
operations  cannot  be  impeded  by  state  taxation.38  This  rule 
has,  however,  been  relaxed  by  Congress,39  and  the  states  may 
now  tax  the  shares  of  national  banks  in  individual  hands,  if 
national  banks  are  not  discriminated  against.40  But  this  waiver 
of  the  exemption  by  Congress  is  to  be  strictly  construed,  and 
taxation  in  any  other  manner  than  prescribed  by  Congress  is 
unconstitutional  ;41  so  a  state  may  tax  shares  held  by  individuals 
although  the  bank's  capital  is  invested  in  United  States  bonds.42 

34  Society  for  Savings  v.  Goite,  6  Wall.  605,  18  L.  ed.  897,  affirm- 
ing 32  Conn.  184;  Home  Ins.  Co.  v.  New  York,  134  U.  S.  598,  10  S. 
•Ct.  594,  33  L.  ed.  1025,  affirming  92  N.  Y.  341  ;  New  York  v.  Eoberts, 
171  U.  S.  664,  19  S.  Ct.  60,  43  L.  ed.  343. 

35  Provident  Inst.  v.  Massachusetts,  6  Wall.  630,  18  L.  ed.  907. 

36  United  States  v.  Perkins,  163  U.  S.  630,  16  S.  Ct.  1073,  41  L.  ed. 
287;  Magoun  v.  Illinois  etc.  Bank,  170  U.  S.  290,  18  S.  Ct.  596,  42 
L.  ed.  1037;  High  v.  Coyne,  92  Fed.  451;  Storrs  v.  St.  Luke's  Hosp., 
180  111.  375,  72  Aon.  St.  Kep.  215,  54  N.  E.  187. 

37  Plummer  v.  Coler,  178  U.  S.  115,  20  S.  Ct.  829,  44  L.  ed.  998; 
.Matter  of  Sherman,  153  N.  Y.  4,  46  N.  E.  1033. 

38  McCulloch  v.  Maryland,  4  Wheat.  439,  4  L.  ed.  579;  Osborne  v. 
United  States  Bank,  9  Wheat.  859,  6  L.  ed.  204;  Bank  of  Commerce 
v.  New  York,  2  Black,  620,  17  L.  ed.  451;  Bank  Tax  Cases,  2  Wall. 
200,  17  L.  ed.  793;  Owensboro  Bank  v.  Owensboro,  173  U.  S.  667,  19 
S.  Ct.  537,  43  L.  ed.  850;  Pittsburgh  v.  National  Bank,  55  Pa.  St.  45; 
Collins  v.  Chicago,  4  Biss.  472,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3011. 

39  Eev.  Stats.,  sec.  5219. 

40  Lionberger  v.  Bouse,  9  Wall.  477,  19  L.  ed.  721;  Aberdeen  Bank 
v.  Chehalis  Co.,  160  U.  S.  449,  17  S.  Ct.  632,  41  L.  ed.  1069;  Pollard 
v.  State,  65  Ala.  630;  Bank  of  Albia  v.  Albia,  86  Iowa,  37,  52  N.  W. 
336. 

41  Lionberger  v.  Bouse,  9  Wall.  468,  19  L.  ed.  721;  Carthage  v.  First 
Nat.  Bank,  71  Mo.  588,  36  Am.  Kep.  494. 

42  People  v.  Commissioners,  4  Wall.  259,  IS  L.  eJ.  344;  National 
Bank  v.  Commonwealth,  9  Wall.  353,  19  L.  ed.  701;  Cummings  v.  Na- 
tional Bank,  101  U.  S.  156,  25  L.  ed.  903;  Van  Slyke  v.  Wisconsin, 
154  U.  S.  5S1,  14  S.  Ct.  1168,  20  L.  ed.  240;  Merchants'  Nat.  Bank  v. 
Pennsylvania,  167  U.  S.  466,  17  S.  Ct.  831,  42  L.  ed.  236. 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  2      National  Bank  Taxes.  91 

Where  shares  of  state  banks  are  exempt,  no  tax  can  be  laid 
on  shares  of  national  banks.43  The  fact  that  there  are  no  state 
banks  in  existence  in  a  particular  state  does  not  affect  the  state's 
right  to  tax  national  bank  shares;44  but  where  there  are  such 
banks  and  they  are  exempt  from  taxation  or  are  taxed  in  some 
other  manner  than  on  their  shares,  a  tax  on  national  bank  shares 
is  invalid,45  and  where  a  general  law  allows  taxpayers  to  deduct 
bona  fide  debts  from  credits  subject  to  taxation,  such  privilege 
must  extend  to  owners  of  national  bank  stock.46  If,  however, 
a  bolder  of  national  bank  shares  has  no  debts  to  deduct,  he  can- 
not object  that  the  state  law  does  not  allow  deduction  in  case  of 
national  bank  stock.47  The  provisions  of  the  act  of  Congress 
cannot  be  evaded  by  assessing  shares  of  national  banks  at  an 
excessive  value.48  The  act  of  Congress  does  not  contemplate 
that  the  taxation  of  state  and  national  banks  shall  be  equal;  its 
object  is  to  prevent  discrimination.49  A  statute  taxing  national 
bank  stock  and  allowing  no  deduction  on  account  of  real  estate 
owned  by  the  bank  is  not  invalid,  such  shares  being  the  property 
of  the  shareholder,  while  the  real  estate  is  the  property  of  the 
bank.50 

43  Boycr  v.  Boy  ear,  113  TJ.  S.  695,  5  S.  Ct.  706,  28  L.  ed.  1089. 

44  Smith  v.  Webb,  11  Minn.  507. 

45  City  Bank  v.  Paducah,  2  Flipp,  66,  Fed.  Cas.  2743;  McHenry  v. 
Downer,  116  CaL  25,  47  Pac.  780,  45  L.  E.  A.  737;  Utica  v.  Churchill, 
33  N.  Y.  231. 

4C  Whitbeek  v.  Mercantile  Bank,  127  TJ.  S.  199,  8  S.  Ct.  1121,  32 
L.  ed.  118;  Supervisors  v.  Stanley,  105  TJ.  S.  308,  26  L.  ed.  1044; 
Boyer  v.  Boyer,  113  TJ.  S.  695,  5  S.  Ct.  709,  28  L.  ed.  1089;  Mercantile 
Bank  v.  New  York,  121  U.  S.  152,  7  S.  Ct.  833,  30  L.  ed.  895;  Rich- 
ards v.  Eock  Rapids,  31  Fed.  512;  Nevada  Nat.  Bank  v.  Dodge,  119 
Fed.  57. 

47  Supervisors  v.  Stanley,  105  TJ.  S.  315,  26  L.  ed.  1044;  Palmer 
v.  McMahon,  133    U.  S.  665,  10  S.  Ct.  326,  33  L.  ed.  772;  Silver  Bow 

.  Davis,  6  Mont.  316,  12  Pac.  693;  Rosenberg  v.  Weekes,  67  Tex. 
585,  4  S.  W.  901. 

48  People  v.  Weaver,  100  U.  S.  543,  25  L.  ed.  705;  Pelton  v.  Na- 
tional Bank,  101  TJ.  S.  145,  25  L.  ed.  901;  Albany  Nat  Bank  v.  Maher, 
19  Blatchf.  177,  6  Fed.  419;  Railroad  Co.  v.  Equalizers,  85  Fed.  307. 

49  Davenport  Bank  v.  Board  of  Equalization,  123  TJ.  S.  85,  8  S. 
Ct.  73,  31  L.  ed.  94;  First  Nat.  Bank  v.  Stone,  88  Fed.  411. 

6o  People's  Nat.  Bank  v.  Marye,  107  Fed.  570. 


95  Commerce.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3 

3.  To  regulate  commerce  with  foreign  nations,  and 
among  the  several  States,  and  with  the  Indian  tribes. 

What  Constitutes  Commerce. 

"Commerce,"  as  used  in  this  clause,  comprehends  every  species 
of  commercial  intercourse  Between  the  United  States  and  for- 
eign nations,  hetween  the  states  and  with  Indian  tribes.1  The 
term  has  reference  to  trade2  or  traffic,  and  the  interchange  of 
commodities,3  but  commerce  is  more  than  traffic;  it  is  commer- 
cial intercourse  between  nations  and  parts  of  nations,  in  all  its 
branches.4  "Trade"'  comprehends  exchange  by  barter  and  buy- 
ing and  selling  for  money,5  but  commerce  is  not  limited  to  mere 
buying  and  selling;  it  embraces  all  commercial  intercourse, 
whether  by  land  or  water,6  and  includes  communication  by 
telegraph.7 

Transportation  is  an  element  of  commerce;8  the  transporta- 

1  Gibbons  v.  Ogden,  9  Wheat.  193,  6  L.  od.  23;  Wabash  etc.  By. 
v.  Illinois,  118  U.  S.  573,  7  S.  Ct.  11,  30  L.  ed.  244;  Leisy  v.  Hardin, 
135  U.  S.  Ill,  10  S.  Ct.  6S5,  34  L.  ed.  128;  City  of  Huntington  v. 
Mahan,  142  Ind.  69S,  51  Am.  St.  Eep.  202,  42  N.  E.  463. 

2  United  States  v.  Bailey,  1  McLean,  234,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,495. 

3  The  Daniel  Ball,  10  Wall.  557,  19  L.  ed.  999. 

4  Gibbons  v.  Ogden,  9  Wheat.  189,  6  L.  ed.  23;  Brown  v.  Mary- 
land, 12  Wheat.  447,  6  L.  ed.  678;  Groves  v.  Slaughter,  15  Pet.  449,  10 
L..  ed.  800;  United  States  v.  Holiday,  3  Wall.  417,  18  L.  ed.  182; 
Mitchell  v.  Steelman,  8  Cal.  363;  People  v.  Brooks,  4  Denio,  469;  Moor 
v.  Veazie,  32  Me.  343,  52  Am.  Dec.  655. 

5  May  v.  Sloan,  101  U.  S.  237,  25  L.  ed.  797. 

6  Case  of  State  Freight  Tax,  15  Wall.  275,  21  L.  ed.  146;  The 
Clinton  Bridge,  10  Wall.  454,  19  L.  ed.  969;  South  Carolina  v.  Georgia, 
93  U.  S.  10,  23  L.  ed.  782;  Eailroad  v.  Fuller,  17  Wall.  568,  21  L.  ed. 
710;  Monongahela  Nav.  Co.  v.  United  States,  148  U.  S.  335,  13  S.  Ct. 
622,  37  L.  ed.  463;  Lord  v.  Steamship  Co.,  102  U.  S.  541,  26  L.  ed.  224. 

1  Pensacola  etc.  Tel.  Co.  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  96  U.  S.  9, 
24  L.  ed.  708;  Telegraph  Co.  v.  Texas,  105  U.  S.  464,  26  L.  ed.  1067; 
Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Pendleton,  122  U.  S.  356,  7  S.  Ct.  1126, 
30  L.  ed.  11S7;  Batterman  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  127  U.  S.  425, 
8  S.  Ct.  1127,  32  L.  ed.  229;  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  James,  162 
U.  S.  654,  16  S.  Ct.  934,  40  L.  ed.  1105. 

8  Case  of  State  Freight  Tax,  15  Wall.  275,  21  L.  ed.  146;  WeJ- 
ton  v.  Missouri,  91  U.  S.  275,  23  L.  ed.  347;  Henderson  v.  Mayor,  92 
U.  S.  259,  23  L.  ed.  543;  Eailroad  Co.  v.  Husen,  95  U.  S.  473,  24  L. 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3  Commerce.  96 

tion  of  articles  of  trade  for  purposes  of  exchange  or  sale;9  trans- 
portation of  passengers.10  The  handling  of  subjects  of  inter- 
Btate  commerce  while  in  transit  is  a  part  of  the  transportation.11 
(  ommerce  does  not  consist  alone  in  the  transportation  of  art- 
icles, but  includes  also  the  contracting  for  the  sale  of  articles, 
and  their  delivery  in  another  state,12  for  sale  is  itself  an  essen- 
tial ingredient  of  intercourse.13 

Navigation  is  included  in  the  term  "commerce,"14  and  the 
power  of  Congress  to  regulate  commerce  embraces  control  of 
navigable  waters,15  accessible  from  a  state  other  than  that  in 
which  they  lie.16     The  powers  authorizes  such  legislation  as  will 

ed.  527;  United  States  v.  Trans-Missouri  etc.  Assn.,  166  U.  S.  312, 
17  S.  Ct.  548,  41  L.  ed.  1007;  Kaieser  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  R.,  5  Me- 
Cr.iry.  -109,  18  Fed.  153;  Carton  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  R.,  59  Iowa,  151, 
44  Am.  Rep.  674,  13  N.  W.  68;  State  v.  Chicago  etc.  Ry.,  40  Minn. 
267,  12  Am.  St.  Rep.  730,  41  N.  W.  1047. 

9  Case  of  State  Freight  Tax,  15  Wall.  275,  21  L.  ed.  146;  Welton 
v.  Missouri,  91  TJ.  S.  275,  23  L.  ed.  347;  Champion  v.  Ames,  188  TJ.  S. 
321,  23  S.  Ct.  321,  47  L.  ed.  492;  Central  Stock  Yards  Co.  v.  Louisville 
etc.  Ry.  Co.,  118  Fed.  113;  Louisville  etc.  R.  R.  v.  Railroad  Commis- 
sion, 19  Fed.  707. 

10  Passenger  Cases,  7  How.  283,  12  L.  ed.  702;  Railroad  Co.  v. 
Husen,  95  TJ.  S.  4G9,  24  L.  ed.  527;  Head  Money  Cases,  112  U.  S.  591, 
5  S.  Ct.  247,  28  L.  ed.  798. 

11  Rhodes  v.  Iowa,  170  U.  S.  426,  18  S.  Ct.  664,  42  L.  ed.  1088. 

12  Addyston  etc.  Co.  v.  United  States,  175  U.  S.  246,  20  S.  Ct.  96, 
44  L.  ed.  136. 

13  Brown  v.  Maryland,  12  Wheat.  447,  6  L.  ed.  678. 

ii  Gibbons  v.  Ogden,  9  Wheat.  189,  6  L.  ed.  23;  United  States  v. 
Coombs,  12  Pet.  78,  9  L.  ed.  1004;  Cooley  v.  Board  of  Wardens,  12 
How.  316,  13  L.  ed.  996;  Passenger  Cases,  7  How.  283,  12  L.  ed.  702; 
South  Carolina  v.  Georgia,  93  U.  S.  10,  23  L.  ed.  782;  New  York  v. 
Miln,  11  Pet.  134,  9  L.  ed.  648;  Railroad  v.  Fuller,  17  Wall.  568,  21 
L.  ed.  710;  The  Wilson  v.  United  States,  1  Brock.  423,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
17,846;  People  v.  BTooks,  4  Denio,  469. 

15  The  Daniel  Ball,  10  Wall.  564,  19  L.  ed.  999;  New  York  v.  Miln, 
11  Pet.  134,  9  L.  ed.  648;   Gibbons  v.  Ogden,  9  Wheat.  197,  6  L.  ed. 

•.  Bridge  Co.  v.  United  States,  105  U.  S.  470,  26  L.  ed.  1143;  Escan- 
daba  etc.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  107  U.  S.  678,  2  S.  Ct.  185,  27  L.  ed.  442. 

16  Gilman  v.  Philadelphia,  3  WalL  725,  18  L.  ed.  96;  The  Daniel 
Ball,  10  Wall.  564,  19  L.  ed.  999;  The  Thomas  Swan,  6  Ben.  45,  Fed. 
I    is.  No.  13,931;  Hatch  v.  Willamette  I.  B.  Co.,  7  Saw.  127,  6  Fed.  326. 


97  Commerce.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3 

insure  convenient  and  safe  navigation  on  such  navigable  waters,17 
and  keep  them  free  from  any  obstruction  to  their  navigation,18 
and  Congress  may  remove  all  such  obstructions,19  whether  caused 
by  state  action  or  otherwise.20  But  in  order  to  bring  obstructions 
to  navigation  on  waters  within  a  state  within  federal  cogni- 
zance, a  statute  is  necessary.21  It  is  for  Congress  to  determine 
what  shall  or  shall  not  be  deemed  an  obstruction  to  naviga- 
tion,22 and  a  bridge  may  be  authorized  against  the  consent 
of  a  state.23  Navigation  upon  rivers  wholly  within  a  state 
and  not  accessible  from  other  states  is  within  the  control  of 
the  state  wherein  they  lie,24  and  even  where  such  rivers  wholly 
within  a  state  are  accessible  from  other  states,  they  are  subject 
to  state  control  in  the  absence  of  congressional  action.25 

Navigability  in  fact  is  the  test  of  the  character  of  a  river,26 
and  all  those  rivers  must  be  regarded  as  public  navigable  rivers 
which  are,  or  may  be,  used  as  highways  of  commerce,  over  which 
trade  and  travel  are,  or  may  be,  conducted  in  customary 
modes,27  or  which  form,  in  their  ordinary  condition,  by  them- 

17  The  Daniel  Ball,  10  Wall.  564,  19  L.  ed.  999. 

18  Gilnian  v.  Philadelphia,  3  Wall.  724,  18  L.  ed.  96;  South  Caro- 
lina v.  Georgia,  93  U.  S.  12,  23  L.  ed.  782;  Lord  v.  Steamship  Co.,  102 
U.  S.  541,  26  L.  ed.  224;  Newport  etc.  Co.  v.  United  States,  18  Fed. 
Cas.   (No.  10,186)   125. 

19  The  Daniel  Ball,  10  Wall.  564,  19  L.  ed.  999;  Monongahela  Nav. 
Co.  v.  United  States,  148  U.  S.  335,  13  S.  Ct.  322,  37  L.  ed.  463. 

20  Gilman  v.  Philadelphia,  3  Wall.  725,  18  L.  ed.  96. 

21  United  States  v.  Bellingham  etc.  Co.,  81  Fed.  661. 

22  South  Carolina  v.  Georgia,  93  U.  S.  12,  23  L.  ed.  782;  Pennsyl- 
vania v.  Wheeling  Bridge  Co.,  18  How.  430,  15  L.  ed.  435;  Miller  v. 
Mayor,  18  Blatchf.  215,  10  Fed.  516. 

23  Decker  v.  Baltimore  etc.  E.  E.,  30  Fed.  726. 

24  Veazie  v.  Moor,  14  How.  571,  14  L.  ed.  545;  Morse  v.  Home  Ins. 
Co.,  30  Wis.  506. 

25  Escandaba  Co.  v.  Chicago,  107  U.  S.  678,  2  S.  Ct.  185,  27  L.  ed. 
442;  Cardwell  v.  Bridge  Co.,  113  U.  S.  208,  5  S.  Ct.  423,  28  L.  ed. 
959;  Harman  v.  Chicago,  147  U.  S.  413,  13  S.  Ct.  306,  37  L.  ed.  216. 

26  Genessee  Chief  v.  Fitzhugh,,  12  How.  456,  13  L.  ed.  1058;  The 
Daniel  Ball,  10  Wall.  563,  19  L.  ed.  999. 

27  The  Daniel  Ball.  10  Wall.  563,  19  L.  ed.  999;  The  Montello,  20 
Wall.  439,  22  L.  ed.  391;  Grand  Trunk  Ey.  v.  Backus,  46  Fed.  214; 
Scranton  v.  Wheeler,  57  Fed.   810. 

Notes  on  Constitution — 7 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3  Commerce.  98 

selves,  or  by  uniting  with  other  waters,  a  continued  highway,28 
and  which  will  carry  products  and  merchandise  to  and  from 
the  inhabitants  of  the  banks  thereof.29  The  navigability  of  a 
river  does  not  presuppose  depth  enough  to  permit  of  passage 
of  boats  at  all  parts,30  and  a  stream  which  is  navigable  for  six 
months  in  the  year  is  a  navigable  water.31  But  a  stream  which 
will  float  logs  only  at  high  water  cannot  be  deemed  navigable;32 
and  a  stream  is  not  navigable  unless  so  for  some  general  and 
useful   purpose.33 

Nature  and  Origin  of  Power  to  Regulate. 

The  right  of  intercourse  derives  its  source  from  those  laws 
whose  authority  is  acknowledged  by  civilized  man  throughout 
the  world.34  The  subject  is  of  national  importance  and  ad- 
mits and  requires  uniformity  of  regulation,35  and  the  power  to 
regulate  it  so  far  as  it  is  "with  foreign  nations,  among  the 
several  states  and  with  the  Indian  tribes,"  which  previously 
existed  in  the  states,  and  which  the  constitution  conferred  upon 
Congress,36  is  paramount  over  all  legislative  powers,37  acknowl- 
edging no  limitations  other  than  those  prescribed  in  the  con- 
stitution.38 

28  Escandaba  Co.  v.  Chicago,  107  U.  S.  682,  7  S.  Ct.  188,  27  L.  ed. 
442;  Miller  v.  Mayor,  109  U.  S.  396,  3  S.  Ct.  234,  27  L.  ed.  971;  Ex 
parte  Boyer,  109  U.  S.  631,  3  S.  Ct.  435,  27  L.  ed.  1056;  The  Hazel 
Kirke,  25  Fed.  605;  Decker  v.  Baltimore  etc.  B.  E.,  30  Fed.  725. 

29  Little  Eock  Co.  v.  Brooks,  39  Ark.  403,  43  Am.  Eep.  280. 

30  St.  Anthony  Falls  etc.  Co.  v.  St.  Paul  Water  Commrs.,  168  U.  S. 
359,  18  S.  Ct.  157,  42  L.  ed.  497;  but  see  Chisholm  v.  Caines,  67  Fed. 
294. 

31  Little  Eock  etc.  Co.  v.  Brooks,  39  Ark.  409,  43  Am.  Eep.  280. 

32  Boyzer  v.  McMillan  etc.  Co.,  105  Ala.  397,  53  Am.  St.  Eep.  133, 
16  South.  924. 

33  Groton  v.  Ilurlbut,  22  Conn.  186. 

34  Gibbons  v.  Ogden,  9  Wheat.  211,  6  L.  ed.  23. 

35  Welton  v.  Missouri,  91  U.  S.  2S0,  23  L.  ed.  347. 

36  South  Carolina  v.  Georgia,  93  U.  S.  9,  23  L.  ed.  782. 

37  Smith  v.  Alabama,  124  U.  S.  473,  31  L.  ed.  508. 

38  Leisy  v.  Hardin,  135  U.  S.  100,  10  S.  Ct.  685,  34  L.  ed.  128;  Gib- 
bons v.  Ogden,  9  Wheat.  196,  6  L.  ed.  23;  Interstate  Commerce  Com. 
v.  Brimson,  154  U.  S.  471,  14  S.  Ct.  1131,  38  L.  ed.  1047;  Addyston 
Pipe  Co.  v.  United  States,  175  U.  S.  228,  20  S.  Ct.  96,  44  L.  ed.  136; 
Sang  Lung  v.  Jackson,  85  Fed.  505;  Mitchell  v.  Steelman,  8  Cal.  372. 


99  Commerce.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3 

The  power  to  regulate  is  the  power  to  prescribe  the  rules 
\>y  which  commerce  is  to  be  governed;39  it  implies  full  power 
over  the  thing  to  be  regulated,  and  excludes  the  action  of  all 
others  that  would  perform  the  same  operation  on  the  same 
thing.40  The  power  of  Congress  extends  to  the  regulation 
of  the  external  commerce  of  the  nation  as  well  as  that  among 
the  states.41 

The  object  of  the  commerce  clause  was  to  keep  commercial 
intercourse  free  from  all  invidious  and  partial  restraints,42  to 
place  it  beyond  interruption  from  conflicting  or  hostile  state 
laws,43  and  insure  uniformity  in  regulations.44  It  was  not 
designed  to  operate  upon  matters  essentially  local  in  their 
nature  and  extent,  but  to  establish  perfect  equality  amongst  the 
states  as  to  commercial  rights.45 

Commerce  "with  foreign  nations"  signifies  transactions 
which,  at  some  stage  of  their  progress,  as  regards  individual 
states,  must  be  extraterritorial,46  and  with  citizens  and  sub- 
jects of  foreign  governments.47  It  includes  all  the  means  by 
which  such  commerce  may  be  carried  on,  whether  by  free  navi* 

39  Gibbons  v.  Ogden,  9  Wheat.  196,  6  L.  ed.  23. 

40  Gibbons  v.  Ogden,  9  Wheat.  209,  6  L.  ed.  23;  Passenger  Cases, 
7  How.  555,  12  L.  ed.  702;  United  States  v.  New  Bedford  Bridge,  1 
Wood.  &  M.  430,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,867. 

41  Brown  v.  Maryland,  12  Wheat.  448,  6  L.  ed.  678;  Passenger 
Cases,  7  How.  395,  12  L.  ed.  702;  Almy  v.  California,  24  How.  173, 
16  L.  ed.  644;  People  v.  Brooks,  4  Denio,  476. 

42  Gibbons  v.  Ogden,  9  Wheat.  231,  6  L.  ed.  23;  Mitchell  v.  Stesl- 
man,  8  Cal.  374. 

43  Southern  S.  S.  Co.  v.  Port  Wardens,  6  Wall.  33,  18  L.  ed.  749; 
Webb  v.  Dunn,  8  Pla.  724. 

44  Eailroad  v.  Richmond,  19  Wall.  590,  22  L.  ed.  173;  Welton  v. 
Missouri,  91  U.  S.  280,  23  L.  ed.  347;  Lehigh  etc.  B.  R.  v.  Pennsyl- 
vania, 145  U.  S.  200,  36  L.  ed.  672;  Broeck  v.  The  J.  M.  Welch,  18 
Blatehf.  72,  2  Fed.  381;  McNaughton  Co.  v.  McGirl,  20  Mont.  130,  63 
Am.  St.  Eep.  613,  49  Pac.  653. 

45  Veazie  v.  Moor,  li  How.  574;   United  States  v.   E.   C.  Knight 
Co.,  156  U.  S.  15,  15  S.  Ct.  255,  39  L.  ed.  325;  The  Katie,  40  Fed.  482. 

46  Veazie  v.  Moor,  14  How.  574,  14  L.  ed.  545;  Lord  v.  Steamship 
Co.,  102  U.  S.  541,  26  L.  ed.  224. 

47  United  States  v.  Holliday,  3  Wall.  417,  IS  L.  ed.  182;  Flanna- 
gan  v.  Philadelphia,  22  Pa.  219. 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3  Commerce.  100 

gation  of  the  waters  of  the  several  states,  or  by  land  across 
them.48  "Among  the  several  states"  may  be  restricted  to  that 
commerce  which  concerns  more  than  one  state.49  The  power 
of  Congress  to  "regulate  commerce  with  the  Indian  tribes"  does 
not  authorize  purely  criminal  laws;50  its  existence  implies  the 
right  to  exercise  it  whenever  there  is  a  subject  to  act  upon,51 
and  it  embraces  all  intercourse  with  the  tribes  and  the  personal 
conduct  of  other  races  with  them.52 

Extent  of  the  Power,  in  General. 

The  commerce  power  committed  to  Congress  is  unlimited, 
except  by  the  constitution  itself.53  It  includes  power  to  pre- 
scribe rules  by  which  it  is  to  be  governed  and  to  control  in- 
strumentalities by  which  it  may  be  carried  on;54  but  the  regu- 
lations must  be  regulations  of  commerce;  supervisory  powers 
.ever  manufactures  and  production  remain  in  the  states,55  while 

48  Pennsylvania  v.  Wheeling  Br.,  18  How.  42;  Columbia  Ins.  Co. 
v.  Peoria  Br.,  C  McLean,  70,  Fed.  Gas.  No.  3046;  Jolly  v.  Terre  Haute 
D.  Co.,  6  McLean,  237,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7441;  Corfield  v.  Coryell,  4  Wash. 
C.  C.  388,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3230. 

49  Veazie  v.  Moor,  14  How.  568,  14  L.  ed.  545;  Passaic  Bridges,  3 
Wall.  782,  16  L.  ed.  799;  The  Daniel  Ball,  10  Wall.  564,  19  L.  ed.  999; 
The  Gretna  Green,  20  Fed.  902;  United  States  v.  De  Writt,  9  Wall. 
44,  19  L.  ed.  593. 

50  United  States  v.  Kagama,  US  U.  S.  378,  6  S.  Ct.  1109,  30  L. 
ed.  228. 

51  United  States  v.  Forty-three  Gallons  of  Whisky,  93  U.  S.  194,  23 
L.  ed.  846;  United  States  v.  Forty-three  Gallons  of  Whisky,  108  U. 
B.  494,  2  S.  Ct.  908. 

52  United  States  v.  Martin,  14  Fed.  821. 

53  Gibbons  v.  Ogden,  9  Wheat.  186,  6  L.  ed.  23;  Welton  v.  Mis- 
souri, 91  U.  S.  280,  23  L.  ed.  347;  Kidd  v.  Pearson,  128  U.  S.  17,  9 
S.  Ct.  6;  Addyston  Pipe  Co.  v.  United  States,  175  U.  S.  228,  20  S. 
Ct.  96,  44  L.  ed.  136;  Scranton  v.  WTheeler,  179  U.  S.  162,  21  S.  Ct.  48, 
45  L.  ed.  126. 

54  Gloucester  Ferry  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  114  U.  S.  203,  5  S.  Ct. 
826,  29  L.  ed.  158;  North  Bloomfield  etc.  Min.  Co.  v.  United  States, 
88  Fed.  675. 

55  Kidd  v.  Pearson,  128  U.  S.  21,  9  S.  Ct.  6,  32  L.  ed.  346;  United 
States  v.  Boyer,  85  Fed.  433;  State  v.  Harrub,  95  Ala.  187,  36  Am.  St. 
Rep.  202,  10  South.  775;  Standard  etc.  Co.  v.  Attorney  General,  46 
N.  J.  Eq.  270,  19  Am.  St.  Eep.  394. 


101  Commerce.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3 

the  "due  process  of  law"  clause  in  the  constitution  does  not 
limit  the  power  of  Congress  to  regulate  commerce,56  yet  the 
power  does  not  carry  the  right  to  impair  constitutional  guaran- 
ties of  personal  liberty.57 

This  clause  does  not  contemplate  commerce  which  is  entirely 
internal,  which  is  carried  on  between  individuals  in  a  state,  or 
between  different  parts  of  the  same  state,  and  does  not  extend 
to  or  affect  other  states,58  and  any  act  of  Congress  interfering 
with  the  exercise  of  powers  retained  by  the  states  is  unconstitu- 
tional and  void.59 

The  power  to  "regulate"  has  even  been  declared  to  embrace 
absolute  prohibition.60 

Exclusive  and  Concurrent  Powers. 

Whatever  subjects  of  the  commerce  power  are  in  their  nature 
national,  or  admit  only  of  one  uniform  system  of  regulation, 
are  within  the  legislative  power  of  Congress  exclusively;61  but 
such  uniformity  must  be  practicable.62     Not  all  subjects  admit- 

56  Addyston  Pipe  Co.  v.  United  States,  175  U.  S.  228,  20  S.  Ct. 
96,  44  L.  ed.  136. 

57  Interstate  Commerce  Com.  v.  Brimson,  154  U.  S.  478,  14  S.  Ct. 
1125,  38  L.  ed.  1047.  See,  also,  United  States  v.  Joint  Traffic  Assn., 
171  U.  S.  571,  19  S.  Ct.  32,  43  L.  ed.  259. 

58  Gibbons  v.  Ogden,  9  Wheat.  194,  6  L.  ed.  23;  Veazie  v.  Moor, 
14  How.  575,  14  L.  ed.  545;  affirming  32  Me.  364,  52  Am.  Dec.  666; 
Lord  v.  Steamship  Co.,  103  U.  S.  543,  26  L.  ed.  226;  United  States 
v.  New  Bedford  Bridge,  1  Wood,  &  M.  417,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,867; 
The  Bright  Star,  Woolw.  275;  The  Belfast  v.  Boon,  41  Ala.  70. 

59  Hall  v.  Be  Cuir,  95  U.  S.  512,  24  L.  ed.  547;  Covington 
Br.  Co.  v.  Kentucky,  154  U.  S.  209,  14  S.  Ct.  1087,  38  L.  ed.  962; 
Geer  v.  Connecticut,  161  U.  S.  531,  16  S.  Ct.  600,  40  L.  ed.  793;  United 

States  v.  E.  C.  Knight  Co.,  156  U.  S.  12,  15  S.  Ct.  249,  39  L.  ed. 
325. 

go  Champion  v.  Ames,  188  U.  S.  321,  23  S.  Ct.  321,  47  L.  ed.  492. 

61  Cooley  v.  Board  of  Wardens,  12  How.  319,  13  L.  ed.  996;  Case 
of  State  Freight  Tax,  15  Wall.  279,  21  L.  ed.  146;  Welton  v.  Missouri, 
91  U.  S.  280,  23  L.  ed.  275;  Cardwell  v.  American  Bridge  Co.,  113  U. 
S.  210,  5  S.  Ct.  423,  28  L.  ed.  959;  Bobbins  v.  Shelby  Co.  Tax.  Dist., 
120  U.  S.  492,  7  S.  Ct.  592,  30  L.  ed.  694;  Brown  v.  Houston,  114 
U.  S.  631,  5  S.  Ct.  1091,  29  L.  ed.  257;  Walling  v.  Michigan,  116  U.  S. 
455,  6  S.   Ct.  454,   29  L.  ed.   691. 

62  County  of  Mobile  v.  Kimball,  102  U.  S.  698,  26  L.  ed.  238. 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3  Commerce.  102 

ting  of  uniformity  of  regulation  however,  are  within  the  exclu- 
sive control  of  Congress,63  Where  the  subjects  do  not  call  for 
uniform  rules  or  national  legislation,  they  may  be  regulated  by 
the  states  in  the  absence  of  congressional  action;64  but  a  state 
statute  in  conflict  with  national  law  must  give  way.65  Where 
the  subjects  are  so  national  in  character  as  to  require  that  any 
legislation  shall  be  uniform,  the, failure  of  Congress  to  act  is 
tantamount  to  a  declaration  that  so  far  as  they  are  concerned 
commerce  shall  be  left  free  and  untrammeled.66  In  fact,  the 
constitution,  by  its  grant  of  power,  impliedly  declares  that  the 
commerce  contemplated  shall  be  free,  except  so  far  as  Congress 
shall  enact  regulations,07  and  as  congressional  regulation  may 
consist  in  abstaining  from  prescribing  positive  rules,  the  power 
to  regulate  cannot  be  deemed  dormant  because  not  affirmatively 
exercised.68 

The  states  have  concurrent  powers  with  Congress  in  matters 
which  are  local  in  their  operation  or  which  are  mere  aids  to  com- 
es Pound  v.  Turck,  95  U.  S.  462,  24  L.  ed.  525;  Adams  v.  Ulmer, 
91  Me.  54,  39  Atl.  350;  J.  S.  Keator  etc.  Co.  v.  St.  Croix  etc.  Corp., 
72  Wis.  82,  7  Am.  St.  Rep.  848,  38  N.  W.  536. 

64  Gilman  v.  Philadelphia,  3  Wall.  726,  18  L.  ed.  96;  Ex  parte 
McNeil,  13  Wall.  240,  20  L.  ed.  624;  Packet  Co.  v.  Catlettsburg,  105 
TJ.  S.  563,  25  L.  ed.  1169;  Transportation  Co.  v.  Parkersburg,  107  U. 
S.  702,  27  L.  ed.  584;  New  York  etc.  R.  R.  v.  New  York,  165  U.  S. 
631,  17  S.  Ct.  419,  41  L.  ed.  853;  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Pendleton, 
95  Ind.  13,  48  Am.  Rep.  693;  Smith  v.  State,  100  Tenn.  498,  46  S.  W. 
567,  41  L.  R.  A.  432. 

65  Gulf  etc.  Ry.  v.  Hefley,  158  U.  S.  104,  15  S.  Ct.  803,  39  L.  ed. 
910;  People  v.  Coleman,  4  Cal.  46,  60  Am.  Dec.  581. 

66  Hinson  v.  Lott,  8  Wall.  152,  19  L.  ed.  387;  Tiernan  v.  Rinker, 
102  U.  S.  127,  26  L.  ed.  103;  Gloucester  Ferry  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  114 
U.  S.  204,  5  S.  Ct.  826,  29  L.  ed.  158;  Brown  v.  Houston,  114  U.  S. 
631,  5  S.  Ct.  1096,  29  L.  ed.  257;  Hall  v.  De  Cuir,  95  TJ.  S.  490,  24 
L.  ed.  547;  Walling  v.  Michigan,  116  TJ.  S.  455,  6  S.  Ct.  457,  29  L. 
ed.  691;  Bowman  v.  Chicago  etc.  Ry.,  125  TJ.  S.  493,  8  S.  Ct.  1066, 
31  L.  ed.  700;  State  v.  Saunders,  19  Kan.  130,  27  Am.  Rep.  100,  Bagg 
v.  Wellington  etc.  R.  R.,  109  N.  C.  279,  26  Am.  St.  Rep.  569,  14  S. 
E.  79,  14  L.  R.  A.  596;  Van  Buren  v.  Downing,  41  Wis.  127;  Arnold 
v.  Yanders,  56  Ohio  St.  421,  60  Am.  St.  Rep.  755,  47  N.  E.  51;  Coram. 
v.  Philadelphia  etc.  Ry.,  1  Pears.  379. 

67  United  States  v.  E.  C.  Knight  Co.,  156  U.  S.  11,  15  S.  Ct. 
249,  39  L.  ed.  325. 

68  Smith  v.  Alabama,  124  U.  S.  473,  8  S.  Ct.  564,  31  L.  cd.  508. 


103  Commerce.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3 

merce,69  or  which  relate  to  rights,  duties  and  liabilities  of  cit- 
izens, although  indirectly  and  remotely  affecting  operations  of 
commerce;70  e.  g.,  the  regulation  of  wharves;71  the  establish- 
ment of  buoys  and  beacons;72  the  improvement  of  harbors73 
and  navigable  rivers,74  and  the  collection  of  toll  for  such  im- 
provements;75 the  construction  and  regulation  of  wharves76  and 
bridges;77   the  construction  and  regulation  of  log  booms;78  the 

69  Cardwell  v.  American  Bridge  Co.,  113  U.  S.  210,  5  S.  Ct.  423, 
28  L.  ed.  959. 

70  Sherlock  v.  Ailing,  93  U.  S.  104. 

71  Ouachita  Packet  Co.  v.  Aiken,  121  U.  S.  446,  7  S.  Ct.  907,  30  L. 
ed.  976;  Transportation  Co.  v.  Parkersburg,  107  U.  S.  691,  2  S.  Ct. 
732,  27  L.  ed.  584. 

72  County  of  Mobile  v.  Kimball,  102  U.  S.  691,  26  L.  ed.  238; 
Ouachita  Packet  Co.  v.  Kimball,  16  Fed.  890. 

73  County  of  Mobile  v.  Kimball,  102  U.  S.  699,  26  L.  ed.  238;  Mo- 
nongahela  Nav.  Co.  v.  United  States,  148  U.  S.  333,  13  S.  Ct.  629,  37 
L.    ed.   463. 

74  Huse  v.  Glover,  119  U.  S.  548,  7  S.  Ct.  313,  30  L.  ed.  487;  Sands 
v.  Manistee  Eiver  Imp.  Co.,  123  U.  S.  295,  8  S.  Ct.  116,  31  L.  ed.  149; 
Stockton  v.  Powell,  29  Fla.  43,  10  South.  693,  15  L.  E.  A.  42;  Wis- 
consin Eiver  Imp.  Co.  v.  Manson,  43  Wis.  255,  28  Am.  Eep.  542; 
Thames  Bank  v.  Lovell,  18  Conn.  511,  46  Am.  Dec.  332;  McEeynolds 
v.  Smallhouse,  8  Bush,  447. 

75  Huse  v.  Glover,  119  TJ.  S.  548,  7  S.  Ct.  313,  30  L.  ed.  487;  Ouachiti 
Packet  Co.  v.  Aiken,  121  U.  S.  448,  7  S.  Ct.  909,  30  L.  ed.  976;  Sands 
v.  Manistee  Eiver  Imp.  Co.,  123  U.  S.  296,  8  S.  Ct.  117,  31  L.  ed. 
149. 

76  Packet  Co.  v.  Catlettsburg,  105  U.  S.  563,  26  L.  ed.  1169;  Trans- 
portation Co.  v.  Parkersburg,  107  TJ.  S.  702,  2  S.  Ct.  732,  27  L.  ed. 
584;  Ouachita  Packet  Co.  v.  Aiken,  121  TJ.  S.  447,  7  S.  Ct.  909,  30  L. 
ed.  976. 

77  Pennsylvania  v.  Wheeling  Bridge  Co.,  18  How.  530,  14  L.  ed. 
249;  Gilman  v.  Philadelphia,  3  Wall.  728,  18  L.  ed.  96;  Escandaba  Co. 
v.  Chicago,  107  TJ.  S.  683,  2  S.  Ct.  185,  27  L.  ed.  442;  affirming  12 
Fed.  777;  Cardwell  v.  American  Bridge  Co.,  113  TJ.  S.  209,  5  S.  Ct. 
423,  28  L.  ed.  959;  Ehea  v.  Newport  etc.  E.  E.,  50  Fed.  20;  Hamilton 
v.  Eailroad,  34  La.  Ann.  973,  44  Am.  Eep.  454;  Commissioners  v. 
Board,  39  Ohio  St.  634;  Gulf  etc.  E.  E,  v.  Dwyer,  75  Tex.  580,  16  Am. 
St.  Eep.  928,  12  S.  W.  1002. 

78  Hurman  v.  Beef  Slough  etc.  Co.,  8  Biss.  344,  1  Fed.  155;  J.  S. 
Keator  etc.  Co.  v.  St.  Croix  etc.  Corp.,  72  Wis.  84,  7  Am.  St.  Eep. 
850,  38  N.  W.  537. 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3  Commerce.  104 

regulation  of  the  business  of  floating  logs;79  prescribing  har- 
bor rules  and  regulations  ;80  prescribing  pilot  laws  and  regulat- 
ing charges;81  the  enactment  of  quarantine  laws.82  When, 
however,  Congress  has  acted  with  relation  to  such  matters  as 
these,  state  laws  in  conflict  with  congressional  action  are  void,83 
and  while  the  commerce  clause  does  not  comprehend  internal 
domestic  commerce,  the  power  enters  the  interior  of  every  state 
whenever  the  interests  of  foreign  or  interstate  commerce  re- 
quire.84 

State  legislation  in  all  matters  in  which  the  power  is  concur- 
rent must  not  interfere  with  interstate  or  foreign  commerce; 
whenever  it  does  so,  whether  Congress  has  acted  or  not,  it  is 
void.85  Obstacles  or  burdens  laid  upon  commerce  are  "regu- 
lations,"86 and  state  laws  imposing  them  upon  interstate  or  for- 
eign   commerce  are  void  under  this  clause.87     State    constitu- 

79  Harrigan  v.  Connecticut  etc.  Co.,  129  Mass.  580,  37  Am.  Kep. 
387. 

so  The  James  Gray  v.  The  John  Fraser,  21  How.  187,  16  L.  ed. 
106;  Packet  Co.  v.  Catlettsburg,  105  U.  S.  563,  26  L.  ed.  1169;  The 
Baltic,  2  Ben.  399;  The  Helen,  5  Hughes,  122,  1  Fed.  922. 

81  Southern  S.  S.  Co.  v.  Port  Wardens,  6  Wall.  31;  Gibbons  v.  Og- 
den,  9  Wheat.  207,  6  L.  ed.  23;  Ex  parte  McNeil,  13  Wall.  241,  20  L. 
ed.  624;  Cooley  v.  Board  of  Wardens,  12  How.  319,  13  L.  ed.  996; 
The  Glenrarne,  7  Saw.  202,  7  Fed.  607;  The  Alcalde,  12  Saw.  270,  3 
Fed.  135. 

82  Morgan  etc.  Co.  v.  Louisiana,  118  IT.  S.  455,  6  S.  Ct.  1114,  30  L. 
ed.  237;  Missouri  etc.  Ky.  v.  Haber,  169  U.  S.  623,  18  S.  Ct.  488,  42 
L.  ed.  878;  Train  v.  Boston  Disinfecting  Co.,  144  Mass.  531,  59  Am. 
Bep.  116,  11  N.  E.  536. 

83  Crandall  v.  Nevada,  6  Wall.  42,  IS  L.  ed.  745;  People  v.  Cole- 
man, 4  Cal.  46,  60  Am.  Dec.  581. 

84  Kidd  v.  Pearson.  128  U.  S.  17,  9  S.  Ct.  6,  32  L.  ed.  346. 

85  Sherlock  v.  Ailing,  93  U.  S.  102,  23  L.  ed.  819;  Bobbins  v. 
Shelby  Co.  Taxing  Dist,,  120  U.  S.  493,  7  S.  Ct.  592,  30  L.  ed.  694; 
State  v.  Saunders,  19  Kan.  127,  27  Am.  Eop.  98. 

86  Case  of  State  Freight  Tax,  15  Wall.  232,  21  L.  ed.  146;  Ward 
v.  Maryland,  12  Wall.  418,  20  L.  ed.  449;  Welton  v.  Missouri,  91 
TJ.  S.  275,  23  L.  ed.  347;  Henderson  v.  New  York,  92  U.  S.  259,  23 
L.  ed.  543;  Chy  Lung  v.  Freeman,  92  U.  S.  275,  23  L.  ed.  550;  Bail- 
road  Co.  v.  Husen,  95  U.  S.  470,  24  L.  ed.  527. 

87  Hall  v.  De  Cuir,  95  U.  S.  488,  24  L.  ed.  547;  Welton  v.  Missouri, 
91  U.  S.   2S2,  23  L.  ed.   347;   Pickard   v.  Pullman   etc.   Car   Co.,   117 


105  Commerce.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3 

tional  provisions,  the  necessary  result  of  enforcing  which  is  to 
limit  or  interfere  with  such  commerce,  are  likewise  void.88  A 
state  cannot  authorize  a  corporation  organized  under  its  laws 
to  do  acts  in  its  corporate  name  which  will  operate  to  restrain 
interstate  commerce,  e.  g.,  to  purchase  the  stock  of  competing 
corporations  in  order  to  create  a  monopoly.89 

Subjects  of  Regulation. 

The  commerce  power  emhraces  all  instruments  by  which  com- 
merce may  be  carried  on,90  and  all  the  immediate  vehicles  and 
agents  for  all  purposes,91  as  well  as  the  articles  carried,92  and 
negotiations  leading  up  to  interstate  or  foreign  commerce.93 
The  powers  of  Congress  are  not  confined  to  instrumentalities 
known  when  the  constitution  was  adopted  but  they  keep  pace 
with,  and  adapt  themselves  to,  new  developments,94  and  what  is 
an  article  of  commerce  is  to  be  determined  by  usages  of  the  com- 
mercial world.95 

U.  S.  49,  6  S.  Ct.  642,  29  L.  ed.  785;  In  re  Christian,  39  Fed.  637; 
Van  Buren  v.  Downing,  41  Wis.  127;  Council  Bluffs  v.  Kansas  etc.  K. 
B.,  45  Iowa,  338,  24  Am.  Bep.  773. 

88  Louisville  etc.  B.  E.  v.  Eubank,  184  U.  S.  36,  22  S.  Ct.  277,  47 
L.   ed.   416. 

89  United  States  v.  Northern  Securities  Co.,  120  Fed.  721;  affirmed 
Adv.  Sheets,  S.  Ct.  1904. 

90  Welton  v.  Missouri,  91  U.  S.  280,  23  L.  ed.  347;  Gloucester  Ferry 
Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  114  U.  S.  204,  5  S.  Ct.  828,  20  L.  ed.  158;  In  re 
Barber,  39  Fed.  64S. 

91  Mitchell  v.  Steelman,  8   Cal.  363. 

92  Sehollenberger  v.  Pennsylvania,  171  U.  S.  24,  18  S.  Ct.  757,  43 
L.  ed.  57;  The  Wilson  v.  United  States,  1  Brock.  423. 

93  Bobbins  v.  Shelby  Co.  Tax.  Dist.,  170  U.  S.  497,  7  S.  Ct.  592,  30 
L.  ed.  694;  Addyston  Pipe  Co.  v.  United  States,  175  U.  S.  246,  20  S. 
Ct.  96,  44  L.  ed.  136;  Le  Loup  v.  Mobile,  127  U.  S.  646,  8  S.  Ct. 
1383,  32  L.  ed.  311;  Wagner  v.  Meakins,  92  Fed.  83;  Gnnn  v.  White 
Sewing-machine  Co.,  57  Ark.  35,  38  Am.  St.  Bep.  226,  20  S.  W.  592,  18 
L.  B.  A.  206;  Coit  v.  Sutton,  102  Mich.  327,  60  N.  W.  691,  25  L.  E,  A. 
819;  Toledo  Com.  Co.  v.  Glen  Mfg.  Co.,  55  Ohio  St.  222,  45  N.  E.  198. 

94  Pensacola  etc.  Tel.  Co.  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  96  U.  S.  9, 
24  L.  ed.  708;  In  re  Debs,  158  U.  S.  5S1,  15  S.  Ct.  900,  39  L.  ed. 
1092;  affirming  64  Fed.  750. 

95  Bowman  v.  Chicago  etc.  By.,  125  U.  S.  501,  8  S.  Ct.  6S9,  29  L. 
ed.  502. 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3  Commerce.  106 

Persons  are  subject  to  the  commerce  power  when  they  con- 
duct commerce  or  are  employed  by  others  who  conduct  it,96  or 
when  they  are  carried  as  passengers.97  So  Congress  may  pre- 
scribe rules  for  the  shipping  of  seamen,98  and  for  the  regulation 
of  seamen  in  the  merchant  service98*  and  their  contracts  and 
liens,99  and  may  prescribe  rules  for  the  government  of  pilots 
and  fix  their  qualifications.100  But  state  courts  have  declared 
that  the  passage  of  an  act  of  Congress  does  not  release  pilots 
from  a  penalty  incurred  under  a  state  law,101  nor  does  an  act 
for  the  regulation  of  pilots  supersede  a  state  law  providing  for 
the  licensing  of  pilots.102  The  power  extends  to  the  enactment 
of  a  recording  act  for  the  security  and  protection  of  persons 
dealing  in  vessels,103  and  of  persons  furnishing  labor  or  sup- 
plies to  vessels,104  and  to  the  enactment  of  a  law  limiting  ship 
owners'  liability  for  losses.105 

96  Cooley  v.  Board  of  Wardens,  12  How.  316,  13  L.  ed.  996;  Cuban 
S.  S.  Co.  v.  Fitzpatrick,  66  Fed.  67;  People  v.  Welch,  141  N.  Y.  266, 
38  Am.  St.  Rep.  793,  36  N.  E.  328,  24  L.  R.  A.  117. 

97  Passenger  Cases,  7  How.  283,  12  L.  ed.  702  (overruling  New  York 
v.  Miln,  11  Pet.  136,  on  this  point);  Crandall  v.  Nevada,  6  Wall.  40; 
Henderson  v.  New  York,  92  U.  S.  269,  23  L.  ed.  543;  Hall  v.  De  Cuir, 
95  U.  S.  516,  24  L.  ©d.  547;  People  v.  Compagnie  Generale,  etc.,  107 
U.  S.  60,  2  S.  Ct.  88,  27  L.  ed.  383;  In  re  Ah  Fong,  3  Saw.  152,  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  102;  Lin  Sing  v.  Washburn,  20  Cal.  534;  State  v.  S.  S.  Con- 
stitution, 42  Cal.  588,  10  Am.  Rep.  310;  Council  Bluffs  v.  Kansas  City 
etc.  R.  R.,  45  Iowa,  349,  24  Am.  Rep.  779. 

98  The  Bark  Chusan,  2  Story,  455,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2717. 
98a  Ex  parte  Pool,  2  Va.  Cas.  276. 

99  The  Bark  Chusan,  2  Story,  455,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2717. 

ioo  Cooley  v.  Board  of  Wardens,  12  How.  319,  13  L.  ed.  996;  The 
South  Cambria,  27  Fed.  526;  State  ex  rel.  v.  Livandias,  36  La.  Ann. 
127;  Webb  v.  Dunn,  18  Fla.  728;  Dryden  v.  Commonwealth,  16  B.  Mon. 
598;   Edwards  v.  Panama,  1   Or.   418. 

101  Sturgis  v.  Spofford,  45  N.  Y.  446. 

102  Cisco  v.  Roberts,  36  N.  Y.  295. 

103  White's  Bank  v.  Smith,  7  Wall.  655,  19  L.  ed.  211;  Blanchard 
v.  The  Martha  Washington,  1  Cliff.  463,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1513;  Foster  v. 
Chamberlain,  41  Ala.  156;  Mitchell  v.  Steelman,  8  Cal.  363;  Shaw  v. 
McCandless,  36  Miss.  296;  Best  v.  Staple,  61  N.  Y.  76;  Lawrence  v. 
Hodges,  92  N.  C.  677,  53  Am.  Rep.  437. 

104  The  Lottawanna,  21  Wall.  577,  22  L.  ed.  654. 

105  Providence  S.  S.  Co.  v.  Hill  Mfg.  Co.,  109  U.  S.  589,  3  S.  Ct. 


107  Commerce.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3 

Corporations,  associations  and  partnerships,  as  well  as  indi- 
viduals, are  subject  to  the  commerce  power;106  e.  g.,  railroad 
companies,107  steamship  companies,108  ferry  companies,109 
sleeping-car  companies,110  express  companies,111  telegraph  com- 
panies,112 bridge  companies.113  It  follows  that  states  cannot 
exclude  foreign  corporations  such  as  these  when  engaged  in  in- 
terstate or  foreign  commerce;114  nor  can  they  impose  limitations 

386,  27  L.  ed.  1038;  Butler  v.  Boston  S.  S.  Co.,  130  U.  S.  555,  9  S.  Ct. 
618,  32  L.  ed.  1017;  In  re  Garnett,  141  U.  S.  12,  11  S.  Ct.  840,  35 
L.  ed.  631;  In  re  Transportation  Co.,  5  Fed.  614;  The  Katie,  40  Fed. 
493. 

ioo  Paul  v.  Virginia,  8  Wall.  183,  19  L.  ed.  357;  Gloucester  Ferry- 
Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  114  IT.  S.  204,  5  S.  Ct.  828,  29  L.  ed.  158; 
Philadelphia  S.  S.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  122  IT.  S.  343,  7  S.  Ct.  1124, 
30  L.  ed.  1200;  Indiana  v.  Pullman  Car  Co.,  11  Biss.  566,  16  Fed. 
193;  Gunn  v.  White  Sewing  Mach.  Co.,  57  Ark.  33,  18  L.  B.  A.  206, 
20  S.  W.  592,  38  Am.  St.  Bep.  224;  McNaughton  v.  McGirl,  20  Mont. 
124,  63  Am.  St.  Bep.  610,  49  Pae.  651,   28  L.  B.  A.  367. 

107  Case  of  State  Freight  Tax,  15  Wall.  275,  21  L.  ed.  146;  Bail- 
road  v.  Husen,  95  IT.  S.  469,  24  L.  ed.  527;  California  v.  Pacific  B.  B., 
127  U.  S.  40,  32  L.  ed.  150;  Kaeiser  v.  IUinois  Cent.  E.  E.,  5  Mc- 
Crary,  499,  18  Fed.  153;  Mobile  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Sessions,  28  Fed.  593. 

108  Philadelphia  S.  S.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  122  IT.  S.  338,  7  S.  Ct. 
1121,  30  L.  ed.  1200. 

109  Gloucester  Ferry  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  114  IT.  S.  212,  5  S.  Ct. 
833,  29  L.  ed.  158. 

no  Pickard  v.  Pullman  Southern  Car  Co.,  117  IT.  S.  48,  6  S.  Ct. 
641,  29  L.  ed.  785;  Pullman  Southern  Car  Co.  v.  Nolan,  22  Fed.  280; 
Indiana  v.  Pullman  Palace  Car  Co.,  11  Biss.  561,  16  Fed.  193;  State 
v.  Woodruff  etc.  Co.,  114  Ind.  158,  15  N.  E.  815. 

in  Crutcher  v.  Kentucky,  141  IT.  S.  56,  11  S.  Ct.  851,  35  L.  ed. 
649;  Webster  v.  Bell,  68  Fed.  185. 

H2  Telegraph  Company  v.  Texas,  105  IT.  S.  466,  26  L.  ed.  1067; 
Le  Loup  v.  Mobile,  127  IT.  S.  647,  8  S.  Ct.  1380,  32  L.  ed.  311;  St. 
Louis  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  39  Fed.  60;  Muskogee  Nat.  Tel. 
Co.  v.  Hall,  118  Fed.  382. 

113  Pennsylvania  v.  Wheeling  etc.  Bridge  Co.,  18  How.  430,  15 
L.  ed.  435;  Bridge  Co.  v.  United  States,  105  U.  S.  475,  26  L.  ed.  1143; 
Luxton  v.  North  Biver  Bridge  Co.,  153  U.  S.  531,  14  S.  Ct.  893,  38  L. 
ed.  808. 

114  Pembina  Min.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  125  U.  S.  185,  8  S.  Ct. 
737,  31  L.  ed.  650;  Horn  Silver  Min.  Co.  v.  New  York,  143  U.  S. 
314,  12  S.  Ct.  403,  36  L.  ed.  164;  Indiana  v.  Pullman  Palace  Car 
Co.,  11  Biss.  561,  16  Fed.  193. 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3  Commerce.  108 

upon  the  right  of  foreign  corporations  to  make  contracts  relat- 
ing to  such  commerce.115 

In  the  regulation  of  commerce  of  which  persons  are  the  sub- 
ject, Congress  may  prescribe  rules  for  passenger  vessels.116 
The  power  extends  to  the  passage  of  laws  to  encourage  immigra- 
tion and  to  the  admission  of  citizens  and  subjects  of  foreign 
nations,117  but  not  to  the  determination  of  their  status  when  they 
arrive.118  Laws  governing  the  right  to  land  immigrants  should 
be  uniform,  and  the  jurisdiction  of  Congress  in  the  passage  of 
such  laws  is  exclusive.119  Immigration,  or  the  importation  of 
persons,  may  be  absolutely  prohibited  by  Congress.120  Laws 
prohibiting  the  importation  of  contract  laborers  are  of  this  class, 
and  are  valid.121  Contribution  levied  upon  ship  owners  bring- 
ing in  foreigners  is  designed  to  mitigate  the  evils  incident  upon 
foreign  immigration,  and  is  not  a  tax  within  the  meaning  of 
the  constitution,  but  a  regulation  of  commerce,122  which  it  is 
within  the  power  of  Congress  to  impose.123 

no  Cooper  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Ferguson,  113  U.  S.  734,  5  S.  Ct.  139,  28  L. 
etl.  1137;  Williams  v.  Hintermeister,  26  Fed.  890;  Milan  Milling 
etc.  Co.  v.  Gorten,  93  Tenn.  594,  27  S.  W.  972,  26  L.  E.  A.  135; 
Keating  etc.  Machine  Co.  v.  The  Favorite  Carriage,  12  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  666,  35  S.  W.  418. 

lie  Gibbons  v.  Ogden,  9  Wheat.  230,  6  L.  ed.  23;  Passenger  Cases, 
7  How.  282,  12  L.  ed.  702;  People  v.  Kaymond,  34  Cal.  492;  Head 
Money  Cases,  112  IT.  S.  591,  5  S.  Ct.  247,  28  L.  ed.  798. 

117  Lin  Sing  v.  Washburn,  20   Cal.  534. 

118  Lemmon  v.  People,  20  N.  Y.  607. 

HO  Henderson  v.  Mayor,  92  U.  S.  273,  23  L.  ed.  543;  In  re  Florio, 
43  Fed.  115. 

120  Gibbons  v.  Ogden,  9  Wheat.  230,  6  L.  ed.  23;  Passenger  Cases, 
7  How.  282,  12  L.  ed.  702;  The  Wilson  v.  United  States,  1  Brock. 
423,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,846;  People  v.  Downer,  7  Cal.  169;  The  Chinese 
Exclusion  Case,  130  U.  S.  603,  9  S.  Ct.  623,  32  L.  ed.  106S;  Fong 
Yne  Ting  v.  United  States,  149  U.  S.  705,  13  S.  Ct.  1016,  37  L.  ed. 
905;  Ekiu  v.  United  States,  142  U.  S.  659,  12  S.  Ct.  338,  35  L.  ed. 
1146;  Moon  Sing  v.  United  States,  158  U.  S.  543,  39  L.  ed.  1082; 
Wong  Wing  v.  United  States,  163  U.  S.  237,  16  S.  Ct.  977,  41  L.  ed. 
140. 

121  Lees  v.  United  States,  150  U.  S.  480,  14  S.  Ct.  163,  37  L.  ed. 
1150. 

122  Head  Money  Cases,  112  U.  S.  595,  5  S.  Ct.  247,  28  L.  ed. 
798. 

123  People  v.  Compagnie  Generale,  107  U.  S.  59,  2  S.  Ct.  87,  27 
L.  ed.  383,  affirming  20  Blatchf.  296,  10  Fed.  357. 


109  Commerce.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3 

A  corpse  is  not  a  person,  nor  is  it  property,  and  is  therefore 
not  a  subject  for  regulation  by  Congress.124 

This  clause  authorizes  the  use  of  all  means  necessary  to  the 
proper  exercise  of  the  power  conferred,  as  the  power  to  build 
and  maintain  light-houses,  piers,  breakwaters,  to  employ  rev- 
enue cutters,  cause  surveys  of  coasts,  rivers  and  harbors,  to  ap- 
point all  necessary  officers,  at  home  and  abroad,  and  prescribe 
their  duties  and  fix  terms  of  office  and  compensation  and  to  de- 
fine and  punish  crimes  relative  to  commerce.125  Crimes  com- 
mitted upon  stranded  vessels  are  punishable  under  act  of  Con- 
gress passed  in  the  exercise  of  this  power.126  The  power  to  lay 
an  embargo  is  also  included  in  the  power  to  regulate  com- 
merce.127 

A  policy  of  insurance  is  not  an  article  of  commerce;  accord- 
ingly the  act  of  issuing  it  cannot  be  a  transaction  of  com- 
merce,128 and  such  business  is  exclusively  within  the  power  of 
the  states  to  regulate.129 

Lottery  tickets,  however,  have  been  declared  to  be  articles  of 
commerce,  and  their  carriage  from  state  to  state  interstate  com- 
merce, which  Congress  may  forbid.130 

124  In  re  Wong  Yung  Quy,  6  Saw.  442,  2  Fed.  624. 

125  United  States  v.  Coombs,  12  Pet.  78,  9  L.  ed.  1004;  United 
States  v.  Holliday,  3  Wall.  407,  18  L.  ed.  182;  United  States  v. 
Rhodes,  1  Abb.  U.  S.  50,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,151;  The  Clinton  Bridge, 
Woolw.  164,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2900. 

126  United  States  v.  Coombs,  12  Pet.  78,  9  L.  ed.  1004;  United 
States  v.  Pitman,  1  Sprague,  196,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,051. 

127  Gibbons  v.  Ogden,  9  Wheat.  191,  6  L.  ed.  23;  United  States 
v.  The  William,  2  Hall    L.  J.  272,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,700. 

12S  Paul  v.  Virginia,  8  Wall.  183,  19  L.  ed.  357;  Liverpool  Ins. 
Co.  v.  Massachusetts,  10  Wall.  573,  19  L.  ed.  1029;  Philadelphia 
etc.  Assn.  v.  New  York,  119  U.  S.  118,  7  S.  Ct.  108,  30  L.  ed.  342; 
Hooper  v.  California,  155  U.  S.  653,  15  S.  Ct.  209,  39  L.  ed.  297. 

129  New  York  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Cravens,  178  U.  S.  401,  20  S.  Ct. 
962,  44  L.  ed.  1116;  Farmers'  etc.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Harrah,  47  Ind.  240; 
Insurance  Co.  v.  Commonwealth,  87  Pa.  St.  183,  30  Am.  Rep.  356; 
List  v.  Commonwealth,  118  Pa.  St.  327,  12  Atl.  279. 

130  Champion  v.  Ames,  188  U.  S.  321,  23  S.  Ct.  321,  47  L.  ed. 
492;  Reilley  v.  United  States,  106  Fed.  896. 


Art  I,  §  8,  CI.  3  Commerce.  110 

Commencement  and  Termination  of  Power. 

Whenever  a  commodity  has  begun  to  move,  as  an  article  of 
trade,  from  one  state  to  another,  commerce  in  that  commodity 
has  begun;131  but  this  movement  does  not  begin  until  the  com- 
modity has  been  shipped  or  started  for  transportation,132  and 
notwithstanding  goods  are  all  ready  for  shipment,  if  they  have 
not  actually  commenced  their  final  movement,  they  have  not  as- 
sumed a  commercial  character  within  this  clause.133  So  logs, 
collected  and  lying  in  a  river  preliminary  to  shipment  out  of  the 
state,  are  not  yet  subjects  of  commerce.134  But  the  character 
of  the  commodity  is  not  determined  by  the  nature  of  the  initial 
act;  actual  movement  is  the  test.135  Shipment  to  a  forwarding 
agent  is  sufficient.136  Nor  does  it  make  any  difference  that  the 
initial  shipment  is  over  an  independent  line  and  for  a  very  short 
distance.137  A  train  of  empty  cars  is  not  to  be  considered  as  en- 
gaged in  interstate  commerce  until  loaded  with  articles  committed 
to  the  carrier.138  While  the  right  to  avail  one's  self  of  the  protec- 
tion of  the  commerce  clatise  by  engaging  in  interstate  or  foreign 
traffic  depends  upon  the  will  of  the  person  making  the  ship- 
ment,139 yet  the  mere  intent  to  export  an  article  cannot  deter- 

131  The  Daniel  Ball,  10  Wall.  565,  19  L.  ed.  999;  Kidd  v.  Pearson, 
128  U.  S.  25,  9  S.  Ct.  6,  32  L.  ed.  346;  Houston  etc.  Nav.  Co.  v. 
Insurance  Co.,  89  Tex.  1,  59  Am.  St.  Rep.  17,  32  S.  W.  890,  30  L.  E. 
A.   713. 

132  Kidd  v.  Pearson,  128  U.  S.  25,  9  S.  Ct.  6,  32  L.  ed.  346;  United 
States  v.  Boyer,  85  Fed.  433;  Bennett  v.  American  Exp.  Co.,  83  Me. 
236,  23  Am.  St.  Rep.  774,  22  Atl.  159,  13  L.  R.  A.  33;  State  v. 
Harrub,  95  Ala.  188,  36  Am.  St.  Rep.  203,  10  South.  755,  15  L.  R.  A. 
761. 

133  Coe  v.  Errol,  116  XL  S.  525,  6  S.  Ct.  475,  29  L.  ed.  715;  United 
States  v.  E.  C.  Knight  Co.,  156  U.  S.  13,  15  S.  Ct.  254,  39  L.  ed.  325, 

.  affirming  60  Fed.  310. 

134  Coe  v.  Errol,  116  U.  S.  528,  6  S.  Ct.  479,  29  L.  ed.  715. 

135  The  Daniel  Ball,  10  Wall.  565,  19  L.  ed.  999. 

136  Cutting  v.  Florida  etc.  Co.,  46  Fed.  644. 

137  Houston  etc.  Co.  v.  Insurance  Co.,  89  Tex.  6,  59  Am.  St.  Rep. 
20,  32  S.  W.  890,  30  L.  R.  A.  713. 

138  Norfolk  etc.  R.  R.  v.  Commonwealth,  93  Va.  749,  57  Am.  St. 
Rep.  827,  24  S.  E.  837,  34  L.  R.  A.  105. 

139  Vance  v.  W.  A.  Vandereook  Co.  (No.  1),  170  U.  S.  455,  18 
S.  Ct.  674,  42  L.  ed.  1150. 


Ill  Commerce.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CL  3 

mine  when  it  becomes  an  article  of  interstate  commerce,140  and 
the  fact  that  coal  offered  for  sale  generally  in  towboats  is  bought 
with  the  intention  of  exporting  it  does  not  exempt  it  from  a 
state  tax.141 

A  commodity  ceases  to  be  a  subject  of  the  commerce  power  when 
importation  is  complete;142  but  importation  is  not  complete  so 
long  as  articles  remain  in  the  importer's  hands  in  the  original 
package.143  When,  however,  the  importer  has  so  acted  upon 
the  thing  imported  that  it  has  become  incorporated  and  mixed 
up  with  the  mass  of  property  in  the  state,  it  has  lost  its  distinc- 
tive character  as  an  article  of  commerce.144 

Internal  Commerce  of  the  States. 

The  power  committed  to  Congress  by  the  constitution  does  not 
extend  to  commerce  wholly  within  a  state;145  the  purely  inter- 
nal commerce  and  navigation  of  a  state  are  subjects  exclusively 
for  state  regulation.146  Such  commerce  is  as  far  removed  from 
federal  control  as  interstate  and  foreign  commerce  is  removed 

140  United  States  v.  E.  C.  Knight  Co.,  156  U.  S.  13,  15  S.  Ct. 
249,  34  L.  ed.  325;  Myers  v.  Commissioners,  83  Md.  385,  55  Am.  St. 
Eep.  349.  35  Atl.  144,  34  L.  E,  A.  309. 

141  Brown  v.  Houston,  114  U.  S.  629,  5  S.  Ct.  1091,  29  L.  ed. 
257. 

142  People  v.  Huntington,  4  N.  Y.  Leg.  Obs.  187. 

143  Brown  v.  Maryland,  12  Wheat.  442,  6  L.  ed.  678;  Welton  v. 
Missouri,  91  TJ.  S.  275,  23  L.  ed.  347;  Cook  v.  Pennsylvania,  97  U.  S. 
573,  24  L.  ed.  1015;  Bowman  v.  Chicago  etc.  By.,  125  TJ.  S.  506,  S 
S.  Ct.  1065,  31  L.  ed.  700;  Leisy  v.  Hardin,  135  TJ.  S.  108,  10  S.  Ct. 
683,  34  L.  ed.  128. 

144  Brown  v.  Maryland,  12  "Wheat.  441,  6  L.  ed.  678;  Ex  parte 
Brown,  48  Fed.  436;  May  v.  New  Orleans,  178  TJ.  S.  507,  44  L.  ed. 
1165. 

145  Gibbons  v.  Ogden,  9  Wheat.  194,  6  L.  ed.  23;  The  Daniel  Ball, 
10  Wall.  564,  19  L.  ed.  999;  Veazie  v.  Moor,  14  How.  575,  14  L.  ed. 
545,  affirming  32  Me.  364,  52  Am.  Dec.  666;  Lord  v.  Steamship  Co., 
102  TJ.  S.  543,  26  L.  ed.  224;  Railroad  Co.  v.  Han-is,  99  Tenn.  710,  43 
S.  W.  121. 

146  Pennsylvania  v.  Wheeling  etc.  Bridge  Co.,  18  How.  432,  15 
L.  ed.  435;  Moore  v.  American  Transp.  Co.,  24  How.  39,  16  L.  ed. 
674;  The  Montello,  11  Wall.  411,  20  L.  ed.  191;  Peik  v.  Chicago  etc. 
R.  R.,  94  TJ.  S.  164,  24  L.  ed.  97;  Pensacola  T.  Co.  v.  Western  Union 
Tel.  Co.,  96  U.  S.  1,  24  L.  ed.  708;  People  v.  Piatt,  17  Johns.  195, 
8   Am.   Dec.   362;    Scott   v.  Wilson,   3   N.  H.   321;    Canal   Commrs.   v. 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3  Commerce.  112 

from  state  control,147  and  Congress  cannot  interfere  with  it  di- 
rectly or  indirectly.148  To  constitute  interstate  commerce,  there 
must  be  traffic  and  intercourse  between  different  states;149  ac- 
cordingly where  both  parties  to  a  sale  of  goods  reside  in  the  same 
state,  the  transaction  is  not  one  of  interstate  commerce.150 
With  respect  to  the  navigable  waters  of  the  United  States,  how- 
ever, it  seems  that  the  regulating  power  of  Congress  extends  to 
vessels  navigating  them,  even  when  engaged  exclusively  in  do- 
mestic commerce,151  and  although  ports  of  destination  and  de- 
parture are  within  the  same  state.152 

Under  these  powers  reserved  by  it  a  state  may  grant  the  ex- 
clusive privilege  of  navigating  a  non-navigable  stream  wholly 
within  its  borders,  in  consideration  for  rendering  it  naviga- 
ble.153 A  state  may  legislate  as  to  roads,  ferries  and  canals,  pro- 
vided it  does  not  thereby  interfere  with  the  free  navigation  of 
interstate  highways,154  and  may  issue  charters  to  bridge,  turn- 
People,  5  Wend.  448;  People  v.  Bensselaer  etc.  E.  P.,  15  Wend.  113, 

30  Am.  Dec.  33;  Cowden  v.  Pacific  Coast  S.  S.  Co.,  94  Cal.  470,  28 
Am.  St.  Eep.  142,  29  Pac.  873,  18  L.  E.  A.  221. 

147  Sands  v.  Manistee  Eiver  Imp.  Co.,  123  U.  S.  295,  8  S.  Ct.  113, 

31  L.  ed.  149;  Geer  v.  Connecticut,  161  U.  S.  531,  16  S.  Ct.  600,  40 
L.  ed.  793. 

148  Covington  etc.  Bridge  Co.  v.  Kentucky,  154  TJ.  S.  210,  14 
S.  Ct.  1087,  38  L.  ed.  970;  United  States  v.  New  Bedford  Bridge, 
1  Wood  &  M.  417,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,867;  The  Gretna  Green,  20  Fed. 
901;  The  Tug  Oconto,  5  Biss.  463,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,421. 

149  State  v.  Harrub,  95  Ala.  176,  36  Am.  St.  Eep.  195,  10  South. 
755,  15  L.  E.  A.  761. 

130  National  Distilling  Co.  v.  Cream  City  Imp.  Co.,  86  Wis.  352, 
39  Am.  St.  Eep.  902,  56  N.  W.  864. 

151  "United  States  v.  Burlington  etc.  Ferry  Co.,  21  Fed.  335. 

152  Cowden  v.  Pacific  Coast  S.  S.  Co.,  94  Cal.  470,  28  Am.  St.  Eep. 
142,  29  Pac.  873,  18  L.  E.  A.  221;  hut   see  Whitaker  v.  The  F.  Lorents,' 
29  Fed.  Cas.  954;  The  Tug  Oconto,  5  Biss.  463,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,421. 

153  Veazie  v.  Moor,  14  How.  571,  14  L.  ed.  545;  Commonwealth  v. 
Philadelphia  etc.  E.  E.,  62  Pa.  St.  292,  1  Am.  Eep.  403;  Mullen  v. 
Log  etc.  Co.,  90  Me.  567,  38  Atl.  560. 

154  Corfield  v.  Coryell,  4  Wash.  C.  C.  371,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3230; 
United  States  v.  New  Bedford  Bridge,  1  Wood.  &  M.  417,  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  15,867. 


113  Commerce.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3 

pike  and  canal  companies,155  and  grant  exclusive  rights.156  It 
cannot,  however,  pass  laws  imposing  tolls  upon  logs  and  lumber 
floating  down  a  stream  running  into  another  state.157  Nor  can 
a  compact  between  adjoining  states,  as  to  the  use  of  a  river 
partly  in  each,  give  the  contracting  states  any  greater  rights  in 
the  river  so  far  as  the  commerce  power  of  Congress  is  con- 
cerned.158 

A  state  may  prescribe  regulations  for  warehouses,159  notwith- 
standing such  warehouses  are  used  as  instruments  by  those  en- 
gaged in  both  interstate  and  domestic  commerce.160  Persons 
and  things  within  the  state's  jurisdiction  are  subject  to  its  reg- 
ulation, although  such  regulation  may  have  a  bearing  upon  com- 
merce,161 as  the  erection  of  wharves.162  Bridges  and  ferries  are 
in  the  same  category  and  are  within  the  state's  powers  of  regula- 
tion.103 The  grant  of  a  ferry  privilege  within  the  limits  of  a 
city  is  not  a  regulation  of  commerce,  although  the  ferry  operates 
across  a  river  and  into  another  state,164  but  a  state  cannot  grant 
rights  which  will  seriously  interfere  with  navigation.165     In  the 

155  Fletcher  v.  Peck,  6  Cranch,  87,  3  L.  ed.  167;  Piscataqua  Bridge 
v.  New  Haven  Bridge,  7  N.  H.  35. 

156  Gibbons  v.  Ogden,  9  Wheat.  19,  6  L.  ed.  23;  People  v.  Babcock, 
11  Weno.  586;  North  Kiver  etc.  Co.  v.  Livingston,  3  Cow.  733. 

157  Carson  Biver  Lumber  Co.  v.  Patterson,  33  Cal.  334. 

15S  Pennsylvania  v.  Wheeling  Bridge  Co.,  18  How.  421,  15  L.  ed. 
435;  South  Carolina  v.  Georgia,  93  U.  S.  4,  23  L.  ed.  782. 

159  Munn  v.  Illinois,  94  U.  S.  113,  24  L.  ed.  77;  Chicago  etc.  E.  E. 
v.  Iowa,  94  TJ.  S.  155,  24  L.  ed.  94. 

160  Munn  v.  Illinois,  94  U.  S.  113,  24  L.  ed.  77. 

161  Passenger  Cases,  7  How.  402,  12  L.  ed.  702;  Sherlock  v.  Ailing, 
93  U.  S.  99,  23  L.  ed.  819;  Hopkins  v.  United  States,  171  U.  S.  594, 
19  S.  Ct.  40,  43  L.  ed.  290;  People  v.  Wabash  etc.  By.,  104  111.  476; 
Wilson  v.  Kansas  City  etc.  K.  B.,  60  Mo.  198. 

162  Stevens  v.  Walker,  15  La.  Ann.  577;  The  Ann  Byan,  7  Ben. 
23,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  428. 

163  Gilman  v.  Philadelphia,  3  Wall.  726,  18  L.  ed.  96;  People  v. 
Eensselaer  etc.  E,  E.,  15  Wend.  113,  30  Am.  Dec.  33;  Gulf  etc.  Ey.  v. 
Dwyer,  75  Tex.  572,  12  S.  W.  1001,  16  Am.  St.  Eep.  926;  Conway  v. 
Taylor,  1  Black,  603,  17  L.  ed.  191;  Newport  v.  Taylor,  16  B.  Mon. 
699. 

164  Carroll  v.  Campbell,  108  Mo.  550,  17  S.  W.  884. 

165  Conway  v.  Taylor,  1  Black,  603,  17  L.  ed.  191;  United  States 

Notes  on  Constitution — 8 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3  Commerce.  114 

absence  of  congressional  restrictions  a  state  may  authorize  the 
bridging  of  an  internal  navigable  river,166  and  a  penalty  for  ob- 
structing a  navigable  stream  wholly  within  a  state  cannot  be  en- 
forced in  the  federal  courts.167 

The  abridgment  of  a  right,  unless  in  conflict  with  the  consti- 
tution or  laws  of  the  United  States,  is  a  matter  between  the  gov- 
ernment and  the  state,168  and  the  United  States  courts  are  not 
bound  to  enjoin  a  bridge  which,  while  it  impedes  navigation,  as- 
sists commerce  generally.169  It  is  within  the  power  of  the  states 
to  enact  any  legislation  which  is  a  mere  aid  to  commerce.170 

Not  everything  which  affects  commerce  amounts  to  a  regula- 
tion of  it;171  valid  legislation  may  indirectly  and  remotely  af- 
fect interstate  commerce.172  So  a  state  may  require  railroads 
to  fix  and  post  up  freight  rates,173  and  may  fix  a  maximum  rate 
for  transportation;174  but  only  so  long  as  both  points  to  which 

v.  New  Bedford  Bridge,  1  Wood.  &  M.  401,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,867; 
Pennsylvania  v.  Wheeling  Bridge  Co.,  13  How.  518,  14  L.  ed.  249. 

166  Willson  v.  Blackbird  Creek  etc.  Co.,  2  Pet.  252,  7  L.  ed.  412; 
The  Passaic  Bridges,  3  Wall.  793,  16  L.  ed.  799;  Escandaba  etc.  Co. 
v.  Chicago,  107  U.  S.  683,  2  S.  Ct.  189,  27  L.  ed.  442;  Cardwell  v. 
American  Bridge  Co.,  113  U.  S.  208,  5  S.  Ct.  424,  28  L.  ed.  959; 
Willamette  Bridge  Co.  v.  Hatch,  125  U.  S.  31,  8  S.  Ct.  815,  31  L. 
ed.   629. 

167  United  States  v.  New  Bedford  Bridge,  1  Wood.  &  M.  417, 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,867. 

108  Willson  v.  Blackbird  Creek  etc.  Co.,  2  Pet.  245,  7  L.  ed.  412; 
Woodman  v.  Kilbourne  Mfg.  Co.,  1  Abb.  U.  S.  163,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
17,978. 

169  Gilman  v.  Philadelphia,  3  Wall.  727,  18  L.  ed.  96. 

170  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  James,  162  U.  S.  656,  16  S.  Ct.  934, 
40  L.  ed.  1105. 

171  Delaware  K.  E.  Tax,  18  Wall.  232,  21  L.  ed.  888;  Case  of  State 
Freight  Tax,  15  Wall.  284,  21  L.  ed.  146;  South  Carolina  v.  Charles- 
ton, 4  Rich.  289. 

172  Passenger  Cases,  7  How.  402,  12  L.  ed.  702;  Crutcher  v.  Ken- 
tucky, 141  U.  S.  61,  11  S.  Ct.  851,  35  L.  ed.  649. 

173  Railroad  Co.  v.  Fuller,  17  Wall.  567,  21  L.  ed.  710;  Case  of 
State  Freight  Tax,  15  Wall.  284,  21  L.  ed.  146;  Munn  v.  Illinois,  94 
U.  S.  135,  24  L.  ed.  77. 

174  Chicago  etc.  R.  R.  v.  Iowa,  94  U.  S.  163,  24  L.  ed.  94;  Peik 
v.  North  Western  R.  R.,  94  U.  S.  177,  24  L.  ed.  97;  Ruggles  v. 
Hlinois,  108  U.  S.  531,  2  S.  Ct.  836,  27  L.  ed.  812;  Dow  v.  Biedelman, 


115  Commerce.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3 

regulations  apply  are  within  the  state.175  CongTess  alone  has 
power  to  prohibit  discrimination  and  unjust  charges  by  inter- 
state carriers;176  accordingly,  a  state  law  imposing  a  penalty  for 
charging  more  than  the  rate  named  in  a  bill  of  lading  cannot 
apply  to  interstate  shipment,177  and  a  state  law  or  constitutional 
provision  is  an  unlawful  interference  with  interstate  commerce  so 
far  as  provisions  as  to  short  and  long  haul  rates  extend  to  a  long 
haul  from  a  point  outside  to  one  within  the  state,  and  a  short 
haul  on  the  same  line  and  in  the  same  direction  between  points 
within  the  state.178  An  ordinance  granting  a  street  railway 
franchise  to  an  interstate  carrier,  which,  in  fixing  the  rate  of 
fare,  discriminates  in  favor  of  a  domestic  carrier,  violates  the 
commerce  clause.179  A  state  law  may  give  a  valid  lien  upon 
boats  and  vessels  navigating  interior  waters,180  and  may  give  a 
right  of  action  in  personam  against  the  owners  of  vessels  injur- 
ing property  on  shore.181  A  law  giving  a  lien  for  materials  and 
supplies  furnished  a  vessel  in  her  home  port  is  not  a  regulation 
of  commerce.182 

125  TJ.  S.  688,  8  S.  Ct.  1029,  31  L.  ed.  841;  Tilley  v.  Kailroad  Commrs., 
4  Woods,  438,  5  Ted.  650;  Galena  etc.  K.  E.  v.  Loomis,  13  111.  548, 
56  Am.  Dec.  471;  Chicago  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Jones,  149  111.  380,  41  Am. 
St.  Eep.  287,  37  N.  E.  252,  24  L.  E.  A.  141. 

175  Wabash  etc.  Ey.  v.  Illinois,  118  U.  S.  564,  7  S.  Ct.  6,  30  L. 
ed.  244;  Covington  etc.  Bridge  Co.  v.  Kentucky,  154  U.  S.  214, 
14  S.  Ct.  1090,  43  L.  ed.  679;  Philadelphia  etc.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania, 
122  U.  S.  338,  7  S.  Ct.  1118,  30  L.  ed.  1200;  Gulf  etc.  Ey.  v.  Dwyer, 
75  Tex.  572,  16  Am.  St.  Eep.  926,  12  S.  W.  1001. 

176  Interstate  Commerce  Com.  v.  Brimson,  154  U.  S.  472,  14  S.  Ct. 
1125,  38  L.  ed.  1047;  Carton  v.  Illinois  Cent.  E.  E.,  59  Iowa,  148,  44 
Am.  Eep.  672. 

177  Gulf  etc.  Ey.  v.  Hefley,  158  U.  S.  102,  15  S.  Ct.  802,  39  L. 
ed.   910. 

178  Louisville  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Eubank,  184  U.  S.  33,  22  S.  Ct.  277, 
46  L.  ed.  416;  Freight  Cases,  95  N.  C.  428,  59  Am.  Eep.  247;  but  see 
Louisville  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Kentucky,  183  U.  S.  518,  22  S.  Ct.  95,  46 
L.  ed.  298. 

179  State  v.  Omaha  etc.  Co.,  113  Iowa,  30,  86  Am.  St.  Eep.  357, 
84  N.  W.  983,  52  L.  E.  A.  315. 

180  King  v.  Greenway,  71  N.  T.  413. 

181  Johnson  v.  Chicago  etc.  Co.,  119  U.  S.  388,  7  S.  Ct.  254,  30 
L.  ed.  447. 

182  Hursey   v.   Hassam,   45  Miss.   133. 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3  Commerce.  116 

Regulation  of  Passenger  Traffic. 

A  state  cannot  impose  upon  shipmasters  burdensome  condi- 
tions as  to  the  landing  of  passengers,183  nor  can  it  regulate  the 
ion  of  subjects  of  foreign  nations  within  its  borders;184 
such  power  resides  only  in  the  federal  government,185  and  the 
right  of  a  state  to  legislate  to  protect  itself  against  paupers  and 
criminals  from  abroad  can  only  arise  from  a  vital  necessity  for 
its  exercise,  and  cannot  be  carried  beyond  the  scope  of  that  ne- 
cessity.186  A  state  law  imposing  a  tax  upon  passengers  coming 
from  a  foreign  port  is  unconstitutional  and  void,187  and  a  state 
law  designed  to  discourage  Chinese  immigration  is  likewise 
void.ls8  A  state  cannot  authorize  the  seizure  and  imprisonment 
of  free  negroes  brought  into  its  territory  from  abroad.189 

A  tax  upon  passengers  or  goods  passing  through  a  state  is  void 
as  in  conflict  with  the  commerce  power.190  A  tax  upon  outgo- 
ing passengers,  while  not  a  regulation  of  commerce  within  this 
clause,  is,  nevertheless,  void,  as  abridging  the  right  of  every 
citizen  to  pass  through  every  part  of  the  United  States.191  So 
also  a  license  tax  imposed  upon   a  resident  agent   soliciting 

183  Henderson  v.  Mayor,  92  TJ.  S.  269,  23  L.  ed.  543;  People  v. 
Compagnie  Generale  etc.,  107  U.  S.  60,  2  S.  Ct.  88,  27  L.  ed.  383, 
affirming  20  Blatchf.  300,  10  Fed.  360. 

1S4  Chy  Lung  v.  Freeman,  92  U.  S.  281,  23  L.  ed.  73. 

185  In  re  Ah  Fong,  3  Saw.  145,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  102;  Passenger  Cases, 
7  How.  349,  12  L.  ed.  702. 

180  Chy  Lung  v.    Freeman,  92  TJ.  S.  280,  23  L.  ed.  550. 

187  Passenger  Cases,  7  How.  349,  12  L.  ed.  702;  People  v.  Downer, 
7  Cal.  171;  People  v.  Raymond,  34  Cal.  498;  State  v.  S.  S.  Consti- 
tution, 42  Cal.  588,  10  Am.  Rep.  310. 

188  Lin  Sing  v.  Washburn,  20  Cal.  534. 

189  Elkinson  v.  Dehesseline,  2  Whart.  C.  C.  56,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4366; 
Anonymous,  1  Opin.  Atty.  Gen.  629;  but    see  Anonymous,  2  Id.  426'. 

100  Passenger  Cases,  7  How.  283,  12  L.  ed.  702;  Crandall  v.  Nevada, 
6  Wall.  35,  18  L.  ed.  745;  Fargo  v.  Michigan,  121  U.  S.  238,  7 
S.  Ct.  860,  30  L.  ed.  888;  Diamond  Match  Co.  v.  Ontanagon,  1S8 
U.  S.  82,  23  S.  Ct.  266,  47  L.  ed.  394.  But,  see  Smith  v.  Marston,  5 
Indiana  v.  American  Exp.  Co.,  7  Biss.  227,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
7021;  Suite  Tax  on  Railroads'  Gross  Receipts,  15  Wall.  284,  21  L. 
ed.  164;  Eailroad  Co.  v.  Maryland,  21  Wall.  456,  22  L.  ed.  678. 

191  Crandall  v.  Nevada,  6  Wall.  49,  18  L.  ed.  745;  Treasurer  v. 
Philadelphia  etc.  R.  R.,  4  Houst.  189. 


117  Commerce.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3 

passenger  travel  over  roads  beyond  the  state  is  a  tax  npon  inter- 
state commerce;192  but  the  business  of  an  emigrant  broker — i.  e., 
a  person  hiring  laborers  to  be  employed  in  another  state — is  upon 
a  different  footing,  and  a  tax  thereon  is  not  in  interference  with 
commerce.193 

A  state  law  requiring  that  all  passengers  irrespective  of  color, 
on  interstate  carriers,  have  equal  privileges  is  a  direct  burden 
upon  interstate  commerce;194  but  a  statute  requiring  railroads 
to  furnish  separate  coaches  for  negroes  on  trains  within  the  state 
i?  not  a  regulation  of  interstate  commerce,  and  is  valid.195 

Police  Powers  of  States. 

The  grant  to  Congress  of  power  to  regulate  foreign  and  inter- 
state commerce  was  not  a  surrender  of  the  police  power;196  nor 
was  it  intended  to  interfere  with  the  proper  exercise  of  the  police 
power  by  the  states,197  although  such  legislation  must  necessarily 
affect  commerce  indirectly.198  The  states'  powers  to  enact  in- 
spection, quarantine  and  health  laws  are  in  nowise  affected  by 

192  MeCall  v.  California,  136  U.  S.  109,  10  S.  Ct.  881,  34  L.  ed. 
391. 

193  Williams  v.  Fears,  179  IT.  S.  278,  21  S.  Ct.  128,  45  L.  ed.  186; 
State  v.  Hunt,  129  N.  C.  686,  85  Am.  St.  Eep.  758,  40  S.  E.  216.  But 
see  Joseph  v.  Eandolph,  71  Ala.  505,  46  Am.  Eep.  349. 

194  Hall  v.  De  Cuir,  95  U.  S.  488,  24  L.  ed.  547. 

195  Louisville  etc.  Ey.  v.  Mississippi,  133  U.  S.  590,  10  S.  Ct.  348, 
33  L.  ed.  784,  affirming  66  Miss.  662,  14  Am.  St.  Eep.  599,  6  South. 
203,  5  L.  E.  A.  132;  Brinkley  v.  Louisville  etc.  Ey.,  95  Fed.  355; 
Smith  v.  State,  100  Tenn.  503,  46  S.  W.  569,  41  L.  E.  A.  432. 

196  Eailroad  v.  Husen,  95  U.  S.  470,  24  L.  ed.  527;  New  York  etc. 
E.  E.  v.  New  York,  165  U.  S.  631,  17  S.  Ct.  418,  41  L.  ed.  853;  Cleve- 
land etc.  Ey.  v.  Illinois,  177  IT.  S.  516,  20  S.  Ct.  722,  44  L.  ed.  868. 

197  Southern  S.  S.  Co.  v.  Port  Wardens,  6  Wall.  33,  18  L.  ed.  749; 
Wiggins'  Ferry  Co.  v.  East  St.  Louis,  107  U.  S.  365,  2  S.  Ct.  257,  27 
L.  ed.  419;  Morgan's  etc.  Co.  v.  Board  of  Health,  36  La.  Ann.  669. 

19S  Sherlock  v.  Ailing,  93  U.  S.  103,  23  L.  ed.  819;  Plumley  v. 
Massachusetts,  155  U.  S.  473,  15  S.  Ct.  158,  39  L.  ed.  223;  Louisville 
etc.  Ey.  v.  Kentucky,  161  U.  S.  701,  16  S.  Ct.  724,  40  L.  ed.  849; 
Hennington  v.  Georgia,  163  H.  S.  315,  16  S.  Ct.  1092,  41  L.  ed.  166; 
Breechbill  v.  Eandall,  102  Ind.  529,  52  Am.  Eep.  696,  1  N.  E.  363; 
Burdick  v.  People,  149  111.  600,  41  Am.  St.  Eep.  329,  36  N.  E.  948, 
24  L.  E.  A.  152. 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3  Commerce.  I18 

this  clause.199  All  private  interests  must  be  subservient  to  the 
general  interest  of  the  community,200  and  the  power  of  the  states 
to  enact  purely  police  regulations  is  supreme.201 

The  police  power  extends  to  the  protection  of  the  lives,  limbs, 
health,  comfort,  morals,  and  quiet  of  all  persons,  and  the  pro- 
tection of  all  property  in  the  state;202  it  is  the  right  of  the  state 
to  prescribe  regulations  for  the  good  order,  peace,  protection, 
comfort,  and  convenience  of  the  community.203  No  general  rule 
can  be  laid  down  to  mark  the  limitations  of  this  power:  each 
particular  case  must  be  judged  by  itself  in  order  to  determine 
whether  the  statute  involved  is  a  legitimate  exercise  of  the  police 
power,  and  not  an  invalid  restriction  upon  commerce.204  A 
state  law  intended  as  a  regulation  of  police  and  calculated  to 
produce  the  end  sought  cannot  be  regarded  as  a  regulation  of 
commerce;205  but  a  state  cannot  under  the  guise  of  a  police 
regulation,  counteract  the  commerce  power  of  Congress.206 

Subjects  of  Police  Regulation. 

Under  the  police  power  a  state  may  regulate  the  position  of 

199  Gibbons  v.  Ogden,  9  Wheat.  1,  6  L.  ed.  23;  New  York  v.  Miln, 
11  Pet.  102,  9  L.  ed.  648;  Conway  v.  Taylor,  1  Black,  633,  17  L.  ed. 
191. 

200  Slaughter-house  Cases,  16  Wall.  62,  21  L.  ed.  394;  Common- 
wealth v.  Alger,  7  Cush.  84;  Taunton  v.  Taylor,  116  Mass.  254;  Water- 
town  v.  Mayo,  109  Mass.  315,  12  Am.  Kep.  694. 

201  Slaughter-house  Cases,  16  Wall.  62,  21  L.  ed.  394;  Bartemeyer 
v.  Iowa,  18  Wall.  138,  21  L.  ed.  929. 

202  Munn  v.  Illinois,  94  U.  S.  147,  24  L.  ed.  77;  Toledo  etc.  Co.  v. 
Jacksonville,  67  111.  37,  16  Am.  Eep.  611;  Ex  parte  Schrader,  33 
Cal.  279;  Davis  v.  Central  E.  B.  Co.,  17  Ga.  323. 

203  New  Orleans  Gas  Co.  v.  Hart,  40  La.  Ann.  474,  8  Am.  St. 
Eep.  547,  4  South.  215. 

204  Pittsburgh  etc.  Coal  Co.  v.  Louisiana,  156  U.  S.  598,  15  S. 
Ct.  459,  39  L.  ed.  544;  Commonwealth  v.  Alger,  7  Cush.  84;  New 
Orleans  Gas  Co."  v.  Hart,  40  La.  Ann.  474,  8  Am.  St.  Eep.  547,  4 
South.   215. 

205  Smith  v.  Maryland,  18  How.  71,  15  L.  ed.  269;  New  York  v. 
Miln,  11  Pet.  139,  9  L.  ed.  648;  Hawthorn  v.  People,  109  111.  302, 
50  Am.  Eep.  610. 

206  License  Cases,  5  How.  592,  12  L.  ed.  256;  Eailroad  Co.  v. 
Husen,  95  U.  S.  473,  24  L.  ed.  527;  Bobbins  v.  Shelby  County  Taxing 
Dist.,  120  U.  S.  493,  7  S.  Ct.  594,  30  L.  ed.  694. 


119  Commeece.  Alt.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3 

vessels  in  her  harbors  and  rivers,207  and  require  the  lighting  of 
vessels  at  night,208  and  regulate  the  speed  of  steamers  on 
navigable  rivers,209  and  the  rafting  of  lumber.  209a  The  intro- 
duction of  slaves,210  or  of  paupers,  criminals,  diseased  or  infirm 
persons,  may  be  prohibited  by  the  states;211  but  while  a  state 
statute  requiring  the  master  of  a  vessel  to  make  a  report  of 
immigrants  is  not  a  regulation  of  commerce,212  a  state  cannot 
require  steamship  companies  to  give  a  bond  guaranteeing  that 
immigrants  will  not  become  charges  upon  the  state;213  nor  can 
a  state  require  carriers  to  remove  paupers  which  they  have 
brought  within  its  borders.214 

The  exclusion  of  passengers  who  are  in  possession  of  their 
faculties,  and  neither  paupers  nor  criminals,  is  a  regulation  of 
commerce  which  the  states  cannot  exercise.215  A  statute  mak- 
ing it  a  crime  to  persuade  seamen  to  leave  their  vessels  is  a  valid 
exercise  of  the  police  power,  and  not  a  restraint  upon  com- 
merce.216 

Railroads  engaged  in  interstate  commerce  are  subject  to 
police  regulations  intended  and  operating  to  expedite  safe  trans- 

207  The  Baltic,  2  Ben.  399;  The  Helen,  5  Hughes,  122,  1  Fed.  922; 
Vanderbilt  v.  Adams,  7  Cow.  348. 

208  The  James  Gray  v.  The  John  Eraser,  21  How.  187,  16  L.  ©d. 
106. 

209  People  v.  Jenkins,  1  Hill,  469;  People  v.  Roe,  1  Id.  470;  Toledo 
etc.  Co.  v.  Deacon,  63  111.  91. 

209a  Harrigan  v.  Connecticut  L.  Co.,  129  Mass.  580,  37  Am.  Rep.  387. 

210  Groves  v.  Slaughter,  15  Pet.  449,  11  L.  ed.  800;  Osborn  v. 
Nicholson,  1  Dill.  235,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,595. 

211  Passenger  Cases,  7  How.  463,  12  L.  ed.  702;  Moore  v.  Illinois, 
14  How.  13,  14  L.  ed.  306;  State  v.  S.  S.  Constitution,  42  Cal.  578, 
10  Am.  Rep.  303;  Lemmon  v.  People,  20  N.  Y.  607. 

212  New  York  v.  Miln,  11  Pet.  132,  9  L.  ed.  648;  Immigration 
Commrs.  v.  Brandt,  26  La.  Ann.  31. 

213  Chy  Lung  v.  Freeman,  92  U.  S.  281,  23  L.  ed.  550.  See,  also, 
Henderson  v.  Mayor,  92  U.  S.  275,  23  L.  ed.  543,  and  Passenger  Cases, 
7  How.  463,  12  L.  ed.  702. 

214  Bangor  v.  Smith,  83  Me.  425,  22  Atl.  380,  13  L.  R.  A.  686. 

215  State  v.  S.  S.  Constitution,  42  Cal.  578,  10  Am.  Rep.  303. 

216  Ex  parte  Young,  36  Or.  247,  59  Pac.  707,  78  Am.  St.  Rep.  772, 
48  L.  R.  A.  153. 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3  Commerce.  120 

portation;217  e.  g.,  a  law  imposing  a  penalty  for  failure  to  ship 
freight  promptly,218  or  for  refusing  to  deliver  freight  upon 
tender  of  the  charges  specified  in  the  bill  of  lading;219  laws  re- 
quiring tracks  to  be  fenced;219*  regulating  the  placing  of 
switches,  the  weight  of  rails,  the  safety  of  beams,  and  the  number 
of  employees.220  Statutes  regulating  the  speed  of  trains  are 
valid  police  regulations;221  as  also  are  statutes  regulating  the 
stoppage  of  trains;222  but  if  adequate  local  service  is  provided, 
such  a  statute,  so  far  as  it  applies  to  through  interstate  trains, 
is  a  burden  upon  commerce  and  void.223  So,  also,  where  the 
effect  of  the  statute  is  to  require  a  fast,  through  mail  train  to 
run  off  the  main  line,  a  burden  is  imposed  upon  interstate  com- 
merce.224 

A  statute  prescribing  the  qualifications  of  locomotive  engineers 
and  requiring  them  to  submit  to  examination,  is  valid  as  a 
police  regulation,  although  it  incidentally  affects  interstate  com- 
merce.225    Seasonable  regulations  for  the  preservation  of  prop- 

217  Chicago  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Iowa,  94  U.  S.  155,  24  L.  ed.  94;  Lake 
Shore  etc.  Ey.  v.  Ohio,  173  TJ.  S.  308,  19  S.  Ct.  465,  43  L.  ed.  702; 
Davidson  v.  State,  4  Tex.  App.  545,  3  Am.  Eep.  166;  Gulf  etc.  Ey. 
Co.  v.  Dwyer,  75  Tex.  572,  16  Am.  St.  Eep.  926,  12  S.  W.  1001. 

218  Bagg  v.  "Wilmington  etc.  E.  E.,  109  N.  C.  279,  26  Am.  St.  Eep. 
569,  14  S.  E.  79,  14  L.  E.  A.  596. 

219  Little  Eock  etc.  Ey.  v.  Hanniford,  49  Ark.  291,  5  S.  W.  294; 
Gulf  etc.  Ey.  Co.  v.  Nelson,  4  Tex.  Civ.  App.  345,  23  S.  W.  732. 

219a  Thorpe  v.  Eutland  etc.  E.  E.,  27  Vt.  130,  62  Am.  Dec,  625. 

220  Thorpe  v.  Eutland  etc.  E.  E.,  27  Vt.  130,  62  Am.  Dec.  625; 
Hegeman  v.  Western  E.  E.,  16  Barb.  353;  Chicago  etc.  Ey.  v.  Eeidy, 
66  111.  43;  Jacobson  v.  Wisconsin  etc.  E.  E.,  71  Minn.  519,  70  Am. 
St.  Eep.  358,  40  L.  E.  A.  389. 

221  Erb  v.  Morasch,  177  U.  S.  585,  20  S.  Ct.  819,  44  L.  ed.  897; 
Clark  v.  Boston  etc.  E.  E.,  64  N.  H.  323,  10  Atl.  676;  Chicago  etc. 
Ey.  Co.  v.  People,  105  111.  657;  Bluedorn  v.  Missouri  Pac.  Ey.,  108 
Mo.  239,  32  Am.  St.  Eep.  615,  18  S.  W.  1103. 

22f2  Lake  Shore  etc.  Ey.  v.  Ohio,  173  U.  S.  301,  19  S.  Ct.  465,  43 
L.  ed.  702;  Chicago  etc.  Ey.  v.  People,  105  111.  657;  Illinois  Cent. 
Ey.  v.  People,  143  111.  434,  33  N.  E.  173,  19  L.  E.  A.  119;  Davidson 
v.  State,  4  Tex.  App.  545,  30  Am.  Eep.  166. 

223  Cleveland  etc.  Ey.  v.  Illinois,  177  U.  S.  521,  20  S.  Ct.  722,  44 
L.  ed.  868. 

224  Illinois  Cent.  Ey.  v.  Illinois,  163  U.  S.  153,  16  S.  Ct.  1096,  41 
L.  ed.  107. 

225  Smith  v.  Alabama,  124  U.  S.  480,  8  S.  Ct.  564,  31  L.  ed.  508; 


121  Commerce.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3 

erty  which  is  unclaimed  at  its  destination,  are  also  within  the 
police  power  of  the  states.226  While  rules  established  by  Con- 
gress control  the  liability  of  interstate  carriers  for  the  loss  of 
goods  in  their  custody  as  such,227  yet  statutes  affecting  the  right 
of  common  carriers  to  limit  their  common-law  liability  are  not 
void  as  restrictions  on  commerce;  they  are  upheld  as  being 
salutary  in  their  operation,  in  that  they  compel  carriers  to  use 
the  utmost  care  and  diligence.228  Acts  restricting  the  right  of 
carriers  to  limit  the  time  within  which  suit  shall  be  brought 
against  them  are  also  upheld.229  A  statute  permitting  the 
garnishment  of  common  carriers  is  not  a  regulation  of  com- 
merce.230 An  act  prohibiting  consolidation  by  parallel  com- 
peting railroads  is  not  an  interference  with  the  commerce  power 
of  Congress.231  Sunday  laws,  subjecting  railroads  to  penalties 
for  running  freight  trains  on  Sunday,  are  regulations  of  police, 
and  not  invalid  as  to  interstate  trains.232  Imposition  by  broker- 
Nashville  etc.  K.  E.  v.  Alabama,  128  IT.  S.  96,  9  S.  Ct.  28,  32  L.  ed. 
352;  McDonald  v.  State,  81  Ala.  279,  60  Am.  Eep.  158,  2  South.  829; 
Louisville  etc.  Ey.  v.  Baldwin,  85  Ala.  623,  5  South.  314. 

226  State  v.  Chicago  etc.  By.,  68  Minn.  381,  64  Am.  St.  Eep.  482, 
71  N.  W.  400,  38  L.  E.  A.  672. 

227  Houston  etc.  Nav.  Co.  v.  Insurance  Co.,  89  Tex.  1,  59  Am.  St. 
Eep.  17,  32  S.  W.  889,  30  L.  E.  A.  713. 

2J2.8  Chicago  etc.  Ey.  v.  Solon,  169  U.  S.  133,  IS  S.  Ct.  289,  43  L. 
ed.  688,  affirming  95  Iowa,  260,  58  Am.  St.  Eep.  430,  63  N.  W.  692, 
28  L.  E.  A.  718;  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Eubanks,  100  Ky.  591, 
66  Am.  St.  Eep.  361,  38  South.  1068,  36  L.  E.  A.  711;  McCann  v. 
Eddy,  133  Mo.  59,  33  S.  W.  71,  35  L.  E,  A.  110. 

229  Gulf  etc.  Ey.  v.  Eddius,  7  Tex.  Civ.  App.  116,  26  S.  W.  42S; 
Beeves  v.  Texas  etc.  By.,  11  Tex.  Civ.  App.  514,  32  S.  W.  920. 

230  Landa  v.  Hoick,  129  Mo.  663,  50  Am.  St.  Eep.  459,  31  S.  W. 
900. 

231  Louisville  etc.  By.  v.  Kentucky,  161  IT.  S.  677,  16  S.  Ct.  714, 
40  L.  ed.  849,  affirming  97  Ky.  675,  31  S.  W.  476;  and  see  Gulf  etc. 
Ey.  Co.  v.  State,  72  Tex.  404,  13  Am.  St.  Eep.  815,  10  S.  W.  81,  1  L. 
E.  A.  849. 

232  Hennington  v.  Georgia,  163  U.  S.  317,  13  S.  Ct,  1086,  affirming 
90  Ga.  396,  17  S.  E.  1009,  41  L.  ed.  166;  State  v.  Southern  Ey.,  119 
N.  C.  814,  56  Am.  St.  Eep.  689,  25  S.  E.  862;  State  v.  Baltimore  etc. 
E.  E.,  24  W.  Va.  783,  49  Am.  Eep.  290.  Contra,  Dinsmore  v.  Police 
Board,  12  Abb.  N.  C.  436;  Norfolk  etc.  Ey.  v.  Commonwealth,  88 
Va.  95,  29  Am.  St.  Eep.  705,  13  S.  E.  340,  13  L.  B.  A.  107. 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3  Commerce.  122 

age  in  railroad  tickets  may  be  prevented  by  an  act  requiring 
ticket  sellers  to  have  certificates  of  authority.233 

Telegraph  companies  are  also  amenable  to  the  police  power, 
and  may  be  subjected  to  penalties  for  acts  of  negligence.234  So 
a  statute  requiring  the  prompt  delivery  of  messages,  without 
partiality,  under  a  penalty,  is  valid;235  likewise,  as  to  a  statute 
requiring  prompt  transmission  of  messages,  although  addressed 
to  points  outside  the  state.236  But  a  law  attempting  to  pre- 
scribe the  mode  in  which  messages  shall  be  delivered  at  points 
outside  the  state  is  void  as  a  regulation  of  commerce.237  A  state 
cannot  exclude  from  its  limits  an  interstate  telegraph  company 
chartered  by  Congress;238  but  a  state  constitutional  provision 
that  no  foreign  corporation  shall  do  business  within  the  state 
without  maintaining  a  known  place  of  business,  and  an  author- 
ized agent  therein,  applies  to  foreign  telegraph  companies.239 
The  purchasing  and  selling  of  pools  on  races  to  be  held  in  other 
states  may  be  prohibited  by  statute,  and  such  statute  is  not  void 
as  a  regulation  of  commerce  so  far  as  it  operates  to  prevent  the 
transmission  of  money  by  interstate  telegraph  to  be  bet  upon 
horseraces.240  Statutes  restricting  contracts  limiting  the  time 
for   suing   telegraph    companies   are   not   regulations    of   com- 

233  Burdick  v.  People,  149  111.  600,  41  Am.  St.  Eep.  329,  36  N. 
E.  948,  24  L.  E.  A.  152;  Fry  v.  State,  63  Ind.  552,  30  Am.  Eep.  238; 
State  v.  Corbett,  57  Minn.  345,  59  N.  W.  317,  24  L.  E.  A.  498. 

234  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Howell,  95  Ga.  194,  51  Am.  St.  Eep. 
68,  22  S.  E.  286,  30  L.  E.  A.  158. 

235  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  James,  162  U.  S.  650,  16  S.  Ct.  94,  40 
L.  ed.  1105,  affirming  90  Ga.  254,  16  S.  E.  83;  Western  Union  Tel. 
Co.  v.  Tyler,  90  Va.  297,  44  Am.  St.  Eep.  910,  18  S.  E.  280. 

236  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Ferris,  103  Ind.  91,  2  N.  E.  240. 

237  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Pendleton,  122  U.  S.  358,  7  S.  Ct. 
1126,  30  L.  ed.  1187. 

238  Pensacola  Tel.  Co.  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  96  U.  S.  9,  24 
L.  ed.  708;  American  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  67 
Ala.  26,  42  Am.  Eep.  90. 

239  American  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  67  Ala. 
26,  42  Am.  Eep.  90. 

240  Lacey  v.  Palmer,  93  Va.  159,  57  Am.  St.  Eep.  795,  24  S.  E. 
930,  31  L.  E,  A.  822;  State  v.  Harbourne,  70  Conn.  484,  66  Am.  St. 
Eep.  126,  40  Atl.  179,  40  L.  E.  A.  607. 


123  Commerce.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3 

merce.241     The  rules  applicable  to  telegraph  companies  apply 
alike  to  telephone  companies.242 

Inspection  laws  are  not  burdens  upon  commerce;  so  long  as 
they  are  reasonable  they  are  proper  police  regulations.243  The 
power  to  pass  such  laws  was  not  surrendered  by  the  states.244 
The  object  of  inspection  laws  is  to  improve  the  quality  of 
articles  produced,  and  fit  them  for  subjects  of  commerce;245 
accordingly,  a  state  cannot  forbid  trade  in  a  well-known  article 
of  commerce,  irrespective  of  its  condition  or  quality.246  A  state 
inspection  law  discriminating  in  favor  of  domestic  products  as 
against  those  of  other  states  is  void  as  a  burden  on  commerce,247 
and  this  though  it  be  valid  on  its  face,  if  its  necessary  operation 
is  to  exclude  products  of  other  states.248  It  is  immaterial  that 
an  act  having  such  effect  purports  to  apply  to  all  states  alike,  in- 
cluding the  enacting  state.249  An  act  requiring  the  inspection 
of  imported  articles  only,  and  not  applying  to  domestic  products, 
is  clearly  a  burden  upon  commerce,  and  void.250     Acts  requir- 

241  Burgess  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  92  Tex.  125,  71  Am.  St.  Eep. 
833,  46  S.  W.  794. 

242  Delaware  etc.  Co.  v.  Delaware,  50  Fed.  677;  Central  Union 
Tel.  Co.  v.  State,  118  Ind.  194,  10  Am.  St.  Eep.  114,  19  N.  E.  604. 

243  Turner  v.  Maryland,  107  U.  S.  38,  2  S.  Ct.  44,  27  L.  ed.  370, 
affirming  55  Md.  240;  Patapsco  Guano  Co.  v.  Board  of  Agriculture,  52 
Fed.  694;  State  v.  Coal  Co.,  41  La.  Ann.  472,  6  South.  224. 

244  King  v.  American  Transp.  Co.,  1  Flipp.  1,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
7787. 

245  Gibbons  v.  Ogden,  9  Wheat.  203,  6  L.  ed.  23. 

246  Bowman  v.  Chicago  etc.  Ey.,  125  U.  S.  488,  8  S.  Ct.  689,  31 
L.  ed.  700;  McGregor  v.  Cone,  104  Iowa,  469,  65  Am.  St.  Rep.  1025, 
73  N.  W.  1043,  39  L.  E.  A.  484;  Scott  v.  Donald,  165  U.  S.  99,  17 
S.  Ct.  265,  41  L.  ed.  632. 

247  Schollenberger  v.  Pennsylvania,  171  U.  S.  12,  18  S.  Ct.  757, 
43  L.  ed.  57;  State  v.  Duckworth,  5  Idaho,  642,  51  Pac.  456,  95  Am. 
St.  Eep.  199,  39  L.  E.  A.  365. 

248  Minnesota  v.  Barber,  136  U.  S.  326,  10  S.  Ct.  862,  34  L.  ed. 
455,  affirming  39  Fed.  641;  Brimmer  v.  Eebman,  138  U.  S.  82,  11  S. 
Ct.  213,  34  L.  ed.  862;  Swift  v.  Sutphin,  39  Fed.  630;  State  v.  Klein, 
126  Ind.  68,  25  N.  E.  873. 

249  Brimmer  v.  Eebman,  138  U.  S.  82,  11  S.  Ct.  213,  34  L.  ed.  862. 

250  Voight  v.  Wright,  141  U.  S.  66,  11  S.  Ct.  855,  35  L.  ed.  638; 
Vance  v.  W.  A.  Vandercook  Co.,  170  U.  S.  456,  18  S.  Ct.  674;  Georgia 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3  Commerce.  124 

ing  the  gauging  of  cargoes  before  sale  are  not  in  conflict  with 
the  commercial  clause.251  Where  an  act  requires  the  inspection 
of  articles  offered  for  sale,  irrespective  of  their  source,  no  con- 
stitutional provision  is  violated.252  A  state  may  forbid  the  sale  of 
dangerous  articles,  such  as  petroleum,  below  a  certain  stan- 
dard,253 and  may  regulate  the  use  of  explosives  and  dangerous 
oils  and  substances,254  and  provide  for  their  removal.255  A 
statute  requiring  vessels  to  furnish  statements  as  to  the  names- 
of  owners,  is  void  as  to  vessels  registered  under  federal  laws,250 
and  a  statute  requiring  the  survey  of  sea-going  vessels  cannot  be 
sustained  as  an  inspection  law.257 

Quarantine  and  other  sanitary  regulations,  incidentally  affect- 
ing commerce,  belong  to  that  class  which  the  states  may  establish 
until  Congress  acts  in  the  matter  b*y  covering  the  same  ground 
or  forbidding  state  laws.258  A  state  quarantine  law  will  not  be 
declared  void  because  it  may,  to  some  extent,  be  a  regulation  of 
foreign  or  interstate  commerce.259     It  is  within  the  police  power 

Packing  Co.  v.  Mayor,  60  Fed.  779;  Vines  v.  State,  67  Ala.  73;  Powell 
v.  State,  69  Ala.  10. 

251  Pittsburgh  etc.  Co.  v.  Louisiana,  156  U.  S.  590,  15  S.  Ct.  459, 
89  L.  ed.  544;  Charleston  v.  Rogers,  2  McCord,  295,  13  Am.  Dec. 
751. 

'-J52  State  v.  Fosdiek,  21  La.  Ann.  256;  Gaines  v.  Coates,  51  Miss. 
335. 

253  Patterson  v.  Kentucky,  1  Bush,  311,  21  Am.  Eep.  220;  Clark 
v.  Board  of  Health,  11  Chic.  L.  N.  194. 

254  Slaughter-house  Cases,  16  Wall.  62,  21  L.  ed.  394;  United  States 
v.  De  Witt,  9  Wall.  44,  19  L.  ed.  593;  Patterson  v.  Kentucky,  97  U. 
S.  504,  24  L.  ed.  1115. 

255  Holmes  v.  Jennison,  14  Pet.  540,  10  L.  ed.  579;  Chillicothe  v. 
Brown,  38  Mo.  App.  616. 

25G  Sinnot  v.  Davenport,  22  How.  227,  16  L.  ed.  243;  Foster  v. 
Davenport,  22  How.  244,  16  L.  ed.  248.  Contra,  Commissioners  v. 
The  Cuba,  28  Ala.  185. 

257  Foster  v.  Port  of  New  Orleans,  94  U.  S.  246,  24  L.  ed.   122. 

258  Morgan's  etc.  S.  S.  Co.  v.  Board  of  Health,  118  U.  S.  465,  6 
S.  Ct.  1114,  30  L.  ed.  237;  King  v.  American  Transp.  Co.,  1  Flipp. 
1,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7787;  Train  v.  Boston  Disinfecting  Co.,  144  Mass. 
531,  59  Am.  Eep.  116,  11  N.  E.  936. 

259  Gilman  v.  Philadelphia,  3  Wall.  713,  18  L.  ed.  96;  Minneapolis 
etc.  Ey.  v.  Milner,  57  Fed.  256. 


125  Commerce.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3 

of  a  state  to  authorize  boards  of  health  to  establish  a  quarantine 
system  to  prevent  immigrants,  and  other  persons  likely  to  spread 
disease,  from  entering  the  state;260  but  whether  a  law  requiring 
the  stoppage  of  vessels  would  be  upheld  as  a  valid  exercise  of  the 
police  power,  if  there  were  federal  quarantine  regulations  is 
questionable.261  Congress,  however,  by  act  of  1799,  adopted 
state  quarantine  laws  and  regulations  and  directed  federal 
officers  and  agents  to  aid  in  their  enforcement.262  A  regula- 
tion of  a  board  of  health  requiring  that  all  rags  arriving  from 
foreign  ports  shall  be  disinfected  before  being  discharged  is 
reasonable  and  valid;263  but  the  police  power  does  not  extend 
to  the  enactment  of  an  ordinance  forbidding  the  importation 
or  dealing  in  second-hand  clothing  which  has  been  imported  re- 
gardless of  the  fact  whether  it  is  infected  or  not.264  The  im- 
portation of  anything,  which,  by  reason  of  its  condition,  would 
cause  disease,  may  be  forbidden265 — e.  g.,  diseased  and  infected 
livestock266 — but  a  state  cannot  prohibit  importation  of  cattle 
during  certain  seasons  of  the  year  regardless  of  the  question  of 

260  Compagnie  Francaise  etc.  v.  Louisiana  State  Board  of  Health, 
186  U.  S.  391,  22  S.  Ct.  811,  46  L.  ed.  1209;  S.  C,  51  La.  Ann.  645,72 
Am.  St.  Rep.  458,  25  South.  591,  56  L.  R.  A.  795;  Hurst  v.  Warner, 
102  Mich.  238,  47  Am.  St.  Rep.  525,  60  N.  W.  440,  26  L.  R.  A.  484; 
St.  Louis  v.  Boffinger,  19  Mo.  13. 

261  Gibbons  v.  Ogden,  9  Wheat.  202,  6  L.  ed.  23;  Henderson  v. 
Mayor,  92  U.  S.  275,  23  L.  ed.  543;  New  Orleans  Gas  Co.  v.  Louisiana 
Light  Co.,  115  TJ.  S.  661,  20  L.  ed.  516. 

262  Gibbons  v.  Ogden,  9  Wheat.  205,  6  L.  ed.  23;  Morgan's  etc. 
S.  S.  Co.  v.  Louisiana,  118  TJ.  S.  464,  6  S.  Ct.  1115,  30  L.  ed.  237; 
Lockwood  v.  Bartlett,  130  N.  Y.  340,  29  N.  E.  257. 

263  Train  v.  Boston  Disinfecting  Co.,  144  Mass.  531,  59  Am.  Rep. 
116,  11  N.  E.  936. 

264  Greensboro  v.  Ehrenreieh,  80  Ala.  579,  60  Am.  Rep.  130. 

265  Bowman  v.  Chicago  etc.  R.  R.,  125  TJ.  S.  4S9,  8  S.  Ct.  6S9,  31 
L.   ed.   700. 

266  Kimmish  v.  Ball,  129  TJ.  S.  222,  9  S.  Ct.  277,  32  L.  ed.  695; 
Missouri  etc.  By.  v.  Haber,  169  U.  S.  623,  18  S.  Ct.  488,  42  L.  ed. 
878;  S.  C,  56  Kan.  708,  44  Pac.  637;  Reid  v.  Colorado,  187  TJ.  S.  137, 
23  S.  Ct.  92,  47  L.  ed.  108,  affirming  29  Colo.  333,  93  Am.  St.  Rep. 
69,  68  Pac.  228;  Rasmussen  v.  Idaho,  181  TJ.  S.  198,  21  S.  Ct.  594,  45 
L.  ed.  820;  Grimes  v.  Eddy,  126  Mo.  16S,  47  Am.  St.  Rep.  653,  28 
S.  W.  760,  26  L.  R.  A.  638. 


Art  I,  §  8,  CI.  3  Commerce.  126 

disease.267  Nor  can  it  forbid  transportation  of  infected  stock 
across  its  territory;268  but  while  it  cannot  interfere  with  such 
transportation,  it  may  provide  reasonable  regulations  as  to  the 
mode  of  transportation  of  livestock  which  is  so  badly  infected  as 
to  be  a  menace  to  stock  within  the  state.269  As  a  sanitary  meas- 
ure, a  state  may  regulate  the  removal  of  dead  bodies.270 

Manufacture  and  sale  of  food  or  other  articles  deleterious  to 
health  may  be  prohibited  under  the  police  power,271  and  al- 
though the  power  to  control  the  manufacture  may  involve  in- 
directly the  control  of  its  disposition,  it  is  not  control  of  com- 
merce within  the  constitution;272  but  the  power  to  forbid  the  sale 
of  an  article  does  not  carry  the  power  to  forbid  its  importa- 
tion.273 Nor  can  a  state  interfere  with  interstate  commerce 
in  an  article  on  the  ground  that  it  is  deleterious  to  its  inhabi- 
tants, so  long  as  it  is  recognized  by  commercial  usage  and  the 
laws  of  Congress  as  a  legitimate  subject  of  commerce.274     A 

267  Railroad  v.  Husen,  95  TJ.  S.  473,  24  L.  ed.  527;  Chicago  etc. 
R.  R.  v.  Erickson,  91  111.  615,  33  Am.  Rep.  71;  Urton  v.  Sherlock, 
75  Mo.  248;  Grimes  v.  Eddy,  126  Mo.  183,  47  Am.  Rep.  662,  28  S.  W. 
760,  26  L.  R.  A.  638. 

268  Grimes  v.  Eddy,  126  Mo.  168,  47  Am.  St.  Rep.  653,  28  S.  W. 
760,  26  L.  R.  A.  638. 

269  Kimmish  v.  Ball,  129  U.  S.  220,  9  S.  Ct.  277,  32  L.  ed.  695; 
Grimes  v.  Eddy,  126  Mo.  168,  47  Am.  St.  Rep.  763,  28  S.  W.  760,  26 
L.  R.  A.  638;  State  v.  Southern  Ry.,  119  N.  C.  814,  56  Am.  St.  Rep. 
689;  Norfolk  etc.  Ry.  v.  Commonwealth,  93  Va.  749,  57  Am.  St.  Rep. 
827,  24  S.  E.  837,  34  L.  R.  A.  105;  Lacey  v.  Palmer,  93  Va.  159,  57 
Am.  St.  Rep.  795,  24  S.  E.  930,  31  L.  R.  A.  822. 

270  In  re  Wong  Quy,  6  Saw.  442,  2  Fed.  624. 

271  Crutcher  v.  Kentucky,  141  TJ.  S.  60,  11  S.  Ct.  851,  35  L.  ed. 
649;  Commonwealth  v.  Huntley,  156  Mass.  248,  30  N.  E.  1132,  15  L. 
R.  A.  839;  Austin  v.  State,  101  Tenn.  563,  70  Am.  St.  Rep.  703,  48  S. 
W.  305,  50  L.  R.  A.  478. 

272  United  States  v.  E.  C.  Knight  Co.,  156  U.  S.  12,  15  S.  Ct.  249, 
39  L.  ed.  325. 

273  Bowman  v.  Chicago  etc.  Ry.,  125  U.  S.  500,  8  S.  Ct.  689,  31 
L.  ed.  700;  Rhodes  v.  Iowa,  170  TJ.  S.  416,  18  S.  Ct.  664,  42  L.  ed. 
1088;  Schollenberger  v.  Pennsylvania,  171  TJ.  S.  15,  18  S.  Ct.  757, 
43  L.  ed.  57;  State  v.  Goetze,  43  W.  Va.  495,  64  Am.  St.  Rep.  871,  27 
S.  E.  225. 

274  Schollenberger  v.  Pennsylvania,  171  TJ.  S.  14,  18  S.  Ct.  757, 
43  L.  ed.  57;  Collins  v.  New  Hampshire,  171  U.  S.  33,  18  S.  Ct.  768, 


127  Commerce.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3 

statute  forbidding  persons  peddling  domestic  goods  to  peddle 
goods  of  the  same  character  if  made  or  produced  in  other  states 
cannot  be  sustained  as  a  police  regulation;275  but  a  statute  in- 
tended to  restrain  the  sale  of  nostrums  by  itinerants,  who  pro- 
fess a  knowledge  of  the  art  of  healing,  in  order  to  make  sales, 
is  not  a  regulation  of  commerce  but  a  valid  police  measure.276 
The  state  may  require  commission  merchants  or  persons  selling 
farm  products  on  commission  to  give  bonds  for  the  benefit  of 
consumers.277 

The  manufacture  of  intoxicating  liquors  may  be  prohibited, 
notwithstanding  it  operates  to  preclude  exportation;278  but 
where  a  state  recognizes  the  manufacture,  sale  and  use  of  intoxi- 
cating liquors  as  lawful,  legislation  discriminating  against  li- 
quors imported  from  other  states  is  void.279  A  statute  provid- 
ing that  no  suit  shall  be  maintained  upon  any  claim  or  de- 
mand for  intoxicating  liquors  purchased  outside  of  the  state 
for.  sale  within,  is  not  a  commerce  regulation.280  Until  the 
enactment  of  the  Wilson  Act  of  1890,  intoxicating  liquors  were 
upon  the  same  footing  as  any  other  commodity,  and  their  im- 
portation could  not  be  forbidden;281  but  since  that  time  the 
traffic  in  intoxicating  liquors  has  been  subject  to  state  regula- 

43  L.  ed.  60;  McGregor  v.  Cone,  104  Iowa,  435,  65  Am.  St.  Kep.  522, 
73  N.  W.  1043,  39  L.  E.  A.  484. 

275  Sayre  Borough  v.  Phillips,  148  Pa.  St.  482,  33  Am.  St.  Eep. 
842,  24  Atl.  76,  16  L.  K.  A.  49. 

276  State  v.  Wheelock,  95  Iowa,  577,  58  Am.  St.  Rep.  442,  64  N.  W. 
620,  30  L.  R.  A.  429. 

277  State  v.  Wagener,  77  Minn.  483,  77  Am.  St.  Rep.  681,  80  N.  W. 
633,  46  L.  R.  A.  442. 

278  Kidd  v.  Pearson,  128  U.  S.  20,  9  S.  Ct.  6,  32  L.  ed.  346;  Tred- 
way  v.  Riley,  32  Neb.  495,  29  Am.  St.  Rep.  447,  49  N.  W.  216. 

279  Scott  v.  Donald,  165  U.  S.  101,  17  S.  Ct.  265,  41  L.  ed.  632. 

280  Knowlton  v.  Doherty,  87  Me.  518,  47  Am.  St.  Rep.  349,  33  Atl. 
18. 

281  Bowman  v.  Chicago  etc.  Ry.,  125  IT.  S.  493,  8  S.  Ct.  689,  31  L. 
ed.  700;  Leisy  v.  Hardin,  135  U.  S.  100,  10  S.  Ct.  681,  34  L.  ed. 
128;  Lyng  v.  Michigan,  135  U.  S.  166,  10  S.  Ct.  727,  34  L.  ed.  150; 
State  v.  Coonan,  82  Iowa,  401,  48  N.  W.  922;  State  v.  Deschamp,  53 
Ark.  493,  14  S.  W.  653;  Haley  v.  State,  42  Neb.  559,  47  Am.  St.  Rep. 
720,  60  N.  W.  963. 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3  Commerce.  128 

tion  regardless  of  the  fact  of  their  importation.282     The  power 
of  the  however,  does  not  extend  to  forbidding  importa- 

tion,283 nor  does  it  extend  to  the  seizure  of  a  boat  with  im- 
ported liquor  on  board;284  it  is  only  "upon  their  arrival  in  the 
state"  that  they  become  subject  to  the  operation  of  state  laws.285 
Statutes  requiring  that  convict-made  goods  shall  be  so  marked 
before  being  offered  for  sale  are  void  as  to  goods  imported  from 
other  states,286  and  a  tax  upon  convict-made  goods  imported 
from  other  states  is  clearly  a  burden  upon  commerce.287 

Game  and  Fish  Laws. 


The  police  power  includes  the  preservation  of  game  and 
fish,288  and  the  states'  power  in  this  respect  flows  from  the 
duty  to  preserve  for  their  people  a  valuable  food  supply.289 
The  commerce  clause  does  not  affect  the  right  of  a  state  to 
prohibit  the  export  of  game,290  or  to  forbid  persons  to  sell  or  to 
have  wild  game  or  fish  in  their  possession  at  certain  times  of  the 

282  In  re  Eahrer,  140  U.  S.  562,  11  S>.  Ct.  865,  35  L.  ed.  57:2;  In 
re  Jordan,  49  Fed.  243;  Stevens  v.  Ohio,  93  Fed.  796. 

283  Ehodes  v.  Iowa,  170  U.  S.  419,  18  S.  Ct.  664,  42  L.  ed.  1083, 
reversing  90  Iowa,  501,  58  N.  W.  889;  Vance  v.  W.  A.  Vandercook 
Co.,  170  IT.  S.  445,  18  S.  Ct.  677,  42  L.  ed.  1100;  Ex  parte  Edgerton, 
59  Fed.  118;  Ex  parte  Jervey,  66  Fed.  961. 

284  Jervey  v.  The  Carolina,  66  Fed.  1019. 

285  Ehodes  v.  Iowa,  170  U.  S.  419,  18  S.  Ct.  664,  42  L.  ed.  1088. 

286  People  v.  Hawkins,  157  N.  Y.  1,  68  Am.  St.  Eep.  736,  51  N.  E. 
257,  42  L.  E,  A.  490. 

287  Arnold  v.  Yanders,  56  Ohio  St.  417,  60  Am.  St.  Eep.  753,  47 
N.  E.  50. 

i  288  Lawton  v.  Steele,  152  U.  S.  136,  14  S.  Ct.  499,  38  L.  ed.  385; 
Manchester  v.  Massachusetts,  139  U.  S.  264,  11  S.  Ct.  559,  35  L.  ed. 
159;  Magner  v.  People,  97  111.  320;  State  v.  Eandolph,  1  Mo.  App.  15; 
People  v.  O'Neil,  110  Mich.  324,  68  N.  W.  227,  33  L.  E.  A.  696; 
State  v.  Judy,  7  Mo.  App.  524. 

2S9  Geer  v.  Connecticut,  161  U.  S.  534,  16  S.  Ct.  600,  40  L.  ed.  793; 
i  ty  v.  Illinois  Mfg.  Co.,  143  Mo.  243,  65  Am.  St.  Eep.  649,  44 
S.   W.  1114,  40  L.  E.  A.  151. 

290  Geer  v.  Connecticut,  161  U.  S.  519,  16  S.  Ct.  600,  40  L.  ed.  793, 
affirming  61  Conn.  114,  22  Atl.  1012,  13  L.  E.  A.  804;  Organ  v.  State, 
56  Ark.  267,  19  S.  W.  840;  State  v.  Northern  Pac.  Exp.  Co.,  58  Minn. 
403,  59  N.  W.  1100.  Contra,  Territory  v.  Evans,  2  Idaho,  634,  23  Pae. 
115,  7  L.  E.  A.  288;  State  v.  Saunders,  19  Kan.  127,  27  Ara.  Eep.  93. 


129  Commerce.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3 

year.291  notwithstanding  such  game  or  fish  may  have  been  killed 
or  taken  lawfully  in  other  states^292  and  commerce  therein  may 
be  precluded.293 

Upon  the  Eevolution  the  people  of  each  state  became  sovereign 
over  the  navigable  waters  and  the  lands  under  them  within 
the  limits  of  the  state,294  with  the  right  of  eminent  domain 
over  them.295  The  admission  of  new  states  gives  them  the  same 
absolute  rights  as  other  states,  notwithstanding  the  title  was 
originally  in  the  United  States  while  they  were  territories,296 
for  upon  the  acquisition  of  new  territory  such  title  vests  in 
the  United  States  merely  in  trust  for  the  states  thereafter  to  be 
created  therefrom.297  The  states  may  regulate  the  planting  of 
oysters  within  their  territorial  limits;298  and  a  law  which  for- 
bids nonresidents  to  plant  or  take  oysters  in  state  waters  is  not 

291  Roth  v.  State,  51  Ohio  St.  209,  46  Am.  St.  Eep.  566,  37  N.  E. 
259;   Dunham  v.  Lamphere,  3  Gray,  268. 

292  Magner  v.  People,  97  111.  320;  State  v.  Randolph,  1  Mo.  App. 
15. 

293  Ex  parte  Maier,  103  Cal.  476,  42  Am.  St.  Rep.  129,  37  Pac.  402. 
Contra,  People  v.  Buffalo  Fish  Co.,  164  N.  Y.  93,  79  Am.  St.  Rep.  622, 
58  N.  E.  34,  52  L.  R.  A.  803. 

294  Martin  v.  Waddell,  16  Pet.  419,  10  L.  ed.  997;  Pollard  v.  Hagan, 
3  How.  212,  11  L.  ed.  565;  Smith  v.  Maryland,  18  How.  74,  15  L.  ed. 
269;  Gilman  v.  Philadelphia,  3  Wall.  726,  18  L.  ed.  432;  Shively  v. 
Bowlby,  152  U.  S.  15,  14  S.  Ct.  548,  38  L.  ed.  331;  Mobile  v.  Eslava, 
16  Pet.  264,  affirming  9  Port.  577,  33  Am.  Dec.  32'5;  Duval  v.  McLos- 
key,  1  Ala.  708;  Kemp  v.  Thorp,  3  Ala.  291;  Pollard  v.  Files,  3  Ala. 
47. 

295  Pollard  v.  Hagan,  3  How.  212,  11  L.  ed.  565;  Martin  v.  Waddell, 
16  Pet.  367,  10  L.  ed.  997;  Russell  v.  New  Jersey  Comp.,  15  How. 
426,  14  L.  ed.  757. 

296  Pollard  v.  Hagan,  3  How.  212,  11  L.  ed.  565;  Gibbons  v.  Ogden, 
9  Wheat.  1,  6  L.  ed.  23;  Pennsylvania  v.  Wheeling  Bridge,  18  How. 
421,  15  L.  ed.  435;  Gilman  v.  Philadelphia,  3  Wall.  713,  18  L.  ed.  96; 
Mumford  v.  Wardwell,  6  Wall.  423,  18  L.  ed.  756;  Goodtitle  v.  Kibbe, 
9  How.  477,  13  L.  ed.  220;  County  of  St.  Clair  v.  Livingston,  23  Wall. 
68,  23  L.  ed.  59;  Morris  v.  United  States,  174  U.  S.  236,  19  S.  Ct. 
174,  43  L.  ed.  946. 

297  Shively  v.  Bowlby,  152  U.  ©.  57,  14  S.  Ct.  548,  38  L.  ed.  331; 
Weber  v.  Harbor  Commrs.,  18  Wall.  66,  21  L.  ed.  798. 

298  Smith  v.  Maryland,  18  How.  71,  15  L.  ed.  269;  State  v.  Harrub, 
95  Ala.  182,  10  South.  753,  36  Am.  St.  Rep.  197,  15  L.  R.  A.  761. 

Notes  on  Constitution — 9 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3  Commerce.  130 

void  as  a  regulation  of  commerce.299  Nor  is  it  material  that  a 
vessel  seized  for  violation  of  such  a  law  is  duly  licensed  under 
an  act  of  Congress;300  and  an  act  requiring  that  vessels  en- 
gaged in  oyster  dredging  shall  procure  licenses  is  not  void  as 
an  interference  with  navigation  or  a  burden  upon  commerce.301 
By  the  grant  of  the  commerce  power  to  Congress  the  states 
surrendered  no  control  over  its  fisheries  and  they  are  subject  to 
protection  or  regulation  under  the  police  power.302 

Taxation  of  Property. 

A  state  cannot  impose  a  tax  upon  the  movement  of  commerce 
between  the  states,303  although  the  same  tax  be  imposed  upon 
domestic  commerce;304  nor  can  a  state,  under  the  guise  of  a 
tax  upon  domestic  business  impose  a  burden  upon  interstate 
commerce  when  the  business  so  taxed  is  itself  interstate  com- 
merce;305 but  where  the  subjects  of  taxation  can  be  separated 

299  McCready  v.  Virginia,  94  U.  S.  394,  24  L.  ed.  248,  affirming 
27  Gratt.  987;  Corfield  v.  Coryell,  4  Wash.  377. 

300  Smith  v.  Maryland,  18  How.  71,  15  L.  ed.  269;  The  Ann,  5 
Hughes,  296,  8  Fed.  926;  Commonwealth  v.  Manchester,  152  Mass. 
243,  23   Am.   St.  Eep.  831,  25  N.  E.   117,  9  L.  R.  A.  236. 

301  Dize  v.  Lloyd,  36  Fed.  651. 

30  2  United  States  v.  Bevans,  3  Wheat.  337,  4  L.  ed.  404;  Martin 
v.  Waddell,  16  Pet.  419,  10  L.  ed.  997;  Smith  v.  Maryland,  18  How. 
71,  15  L.  ed.  269;  Manchester  v.  Massachusetts,  139  U.  S.  260,  11  S. 
?t.  562,  35  L.  ed.  159;  affirming  152  Mass.  243,  23  Am.  St.  Rep. 
831,  25  N.  E.  117,  9  L.  R.  A.  236;  Bennett  v.  Boggs,  Baldw.  76,  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  1319;  The  Martha  Anne,  Olcott,  22,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9146; 
Weston  v.  Sampson,  8  Gush.  347,  54  Am.  Dec.  764;  Peck  v.  Lockwood, 
5  Day,  22;  Arnold  v.  Mundy,  1  Halst.  1,  10  Am.  Dee.  356;  Stuttsman 
v.  State,  57  Ind.  119;  Parker  v.  Cutler  etc.  Corp.,  20  Me.  353,  27  Am. 
Dec.  56;  Fleet  v.  Hegeman,  14  Wend.  42;  Commonwealth  v.  Weather- 
head,  110  Mass.  175;  Gentile  v.  State,  29  Ind.  409;  State  v.  Tower,  84 
Me.  445,  24  Atl.  899. 

303  Baijroad  Co.  v.  Maryland,  21  Wall.  472,  22  L.  ed.  678;  Pickard 
v.  Railroad  Co.,  117  U.  S.  48,  6  S.  Ct.  642,  29  L.  ed.  785;  Ashley  v. 
Eyan,  153  U.  S.  440,  14  S.  Ct.  865,  38  L.  ed.  773;  Lyng  v.  Michigan, 
135  U.  S.  166,  10  S.  Ct.  725,  34  L.  ed.  150;  McNaughton  v.  McGirl, 
20  Mont.  124,  63  Am.  St.  Rep.  610,  49  Pac.  621,  38  L.  R.  A.  367. 

304  Robbins  v.  Shelby  County  Tax.  Dist.,  120  TJ.  S.  497,  7  S.  Ct. 
592,  30  L.  ed.  694;  Philadelphia  etc.  S.  S.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  122 
U.  S.  340,  7  S.  Ct.  1118,  30  L.  ed.  1200. 

305  Fargo  v.  Michigan,  121  U.  S.  244,  7  S.  Ct.  857,  30  L.  ed.  888; 


131  Commerce.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3 

so  that  that  which  arises  from  interstate  commerce  can  be  distin- 
guished from  that  arising  from  domestic  commerce,  the  courts 
will  hold  the  tax  void  only  so  far  as  the  former  is  affected.306 
To  be  unlawful,  however,  the  interference  must  be  direct,  and 
not  the  mere  incidental  effect  of  the  requirement  of  the  usual 
contribution  to  public  maintenance.307 

Ships  or  vessels  are  taxable  by  the  states,  as  property,  in  their 
home  ports,  notwithstanding  they  may  be  licensed  as  coasting 
vessels  under  federal  laws;308  but  the  tax  must  be  upon  them 
as  private  property,  and  not  as  instruments  of  commerce  and 
navigation,309  and  must  be  levied  in  the  home  port.310  So  a 
state  cannot  tax  vessels  merely  temporarily  within  its  jurisdic- 
tion for  the  purpose  of  discharging  freight  and  passengers;311 
but  the  enrollment  of  a  vessel  in  a  port  of  another  state  does 
not  affect  her  registry  or  ownership  in  her  home  port.312     The 

McCall  v.  California,  136  U.  S.  110,  10  S.  Ct.  883,  34  L.  ed.  391;  State 
V.  Stephens,  146  Mo.  681,  69  Am.  St.  Kep.  636,  48  S.  W.  934. 

306  Katterman  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  127  U.  S.  424,  8  S.  Ct. 
1127,  32  L.  ed.  229;  Western  etc.  Co.  v.  Alabama  Board  etc.,  132  U.  S. 
475,  10  S.  Ct.  162,  33  L.  ed.  409;  Postal  etc.  Cable  Co.  v.  Charleston, 
153  U.  S.  697,  14  S.  Ct.  1096,  28  L.  ed.  871;  Lehigh  etc.  E.  E.  v. 
Pennsylvania,  145  U.  S.  200,  12  S.  Ct.  806,  36  L.  ed.  672. 

307  Erie  E.  E.  v.  Pennsylvania,  158  U.  S.  439,  15  S.  Ct.  900,  39  L. 
ed.  1043;  Henderson  Bridge  Co.  v.  Kentucky,  166  U.  S.  154,  17  S.  Ct. 
533,  41  L.   ed.   953. 

308  Transportation  Co.  v.  Wheeling,  99  U.  S.  279,  25  L.  ed.  412; 
Moran  v.  New  Orleans,  112  U.  S.  75,  5  S.  Ct.  38,  28  L.  ed.  653;  Line- 
han  etc.  Co.  v.  Pendergass,  70  Fed.  2;  Oteri  v.  Parker,  42  La.  Ann.  379, 
7   South.  571. 

309  State  Tonnage  Tax  Cases,  12  Wall.  213,  20  L.  ed.  370;  Battle 
v.  Mobile,  9  Ala.  234,  44  Am.  Dee.  438;  Howell  v.  State,  3  Gill,  14; 
Gunther  v.  Baltimore,  55  Md.  457;  People  v.  Commissioners,  48  Barb. 
157. 

3io  Morgan  v.  Parham,  16  Wall.  476,  21  L.  ed.  303;  Peete  v. 
Morgan,  19  Wall.  581,  22  L.  ed.  201;  Transportation  Co.  v.  Wheeling,  99 
U.  S.  273,  25  L.  ed.  412,  affirming  9  W.  Va.  170,  27  Am.  Eep.  552; 
Cook  v.  Port  Fulton,  106  Ind.  173,  6  N.  E.  323;  New  Orleans  v. 
Eclipse  Towboat  Co.,  33  La.  Ann.  650,  39  Am.  Eep.  282. 

311  Hays  v.  Pacific  Mail  S.  S.  Co.,  17  How.  596,  15  L.  ed.  254; 
Morgan  v.  Parham,  16  Wall.  478,  21  L.  ed.  303;  Clarke  v.  Philadelphia 
etc.  Co.,  4  Houst.  158. 

312  Morgan  v.  Parham,  16  Wall.  476,  21  L.  ed.  303;  The  Lotus  No. 
2.  2-6  Fed.  640. 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3  Commerce.  13fc 

same  rules  are  applicable  to  ferry-boats  plying  between  different 
state?.314  A  tax  upon  water-craft  in  wbich  goods  are  sold  by 
retail  is  valid,  although  the  goods  are  brought  from  another 
state.315 

Bridges  and  bridge  companies  are  subject  to  taxation,  not- 
withstanding the  bridge  taxed  connects  two  states.316  A  tax 
upon  the  franchise  of  a  bridge  company  is  not  a  tax  on  inter- 
state commerce,  although  the  bridge  is  used  by  an  interstate 
carrier,317  nor  is  a  tax  upon  the  capital  stock  of  a  bridge 
company  a  burden  on  commerce  when  the  company  itself  is  not 
engaged  in  interstate  commerce.318  The  right  of  the  states  is 
not  affected  by  the  fact  that  bridges  subjected  to  tax  are  made 
post  roads  by  act  of  Congress.319 

Foreign  corporations  and  corporations  engaged  in  interstate 
commerce  are  taxable  upon  their  property  and  franchises,  if 
foreign  or  interstate  commerce  is  not  thereby  directly  im- 
peded.320 The  existence  of  the  power  of  Congress  to  supervise 
interstate  commerce  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  power  of  the 

314  Gloucester  Ferry  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  114  U.  S.  210,  5  S.  Ct. 
826,  29  L.  ed.  158;  Wiggins  Ferry  Co.  v.  East  St.  Louis,  107  U.  S. 
S65,  27  L.  ed.  419. 

315  Harrison  v.  Mayor,  11   Miss.  581,  4  Am.  Dee.  633. 

316  Henderson  Br.  Co.  v.  Henderson  City,  141  U.  S.  689,  12  S.  Ct. 
114,  43  L.  ed.  823;  Pittsburgh  etc.  Ey.  v.  Board,  172  U.  S.  43,  19  S.  Ct. 
94,  43  L.  ed.  354;  Henderson  Br.  Co.  v.  Henderson  City,  173  U.  S.  623, 
19  S.  Ct.  565,  43  L.  ed.  823. 

317  Henderson  Br.  Co.  v.  Kentucky,  166  U.  S.  154,  17  S.  Ct.  532,  41 
L.  ed.  953. 

318  Keokuk  etc.  Br.  Co.  v.  Illinois,  175  U.  S.  632,  20  S.  Ct.  207, 
44  L.  ed.  299. 

319  Henderson  Br.  Co.  v.  Kentucky.  166  U.  S.  154,  17  S.  Gt.  532, 
41  L.  ed.  953. 

320  Liverpool  Ins.  Co.  v.  Massachusetts,  10  Wall.  566,  19  L.  ed. 
1025;  Philadelphia  etc.  S.  S.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  122  U.  S.  345,  7  S. 
Ct.  1118,  30  L.  ed.  1200;  Horn  Silver  Mining  Co.  v.  New  Tork,  143 
U.  S.  317,  12  S.  Ct.  403,  36  L.  ed.  164;  Ashley  v.  Evan,  153  U.  S.  446, 

14  S.  Ct.  865,  38  L.  ed.  773;  Postal  Tel.  Co.  v.  Adams,  155  U.  S.  696, 

15  S.  Ct.  360,  39  L.  ed.  311;  Oakland  Sugar  Mill  Co.  v.  Fred  W.  Wolf  Co., 
118  Fed.  239;  Singer  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Wright,  33  Fed.  121;  Indianapolis 
etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Backus,  133  Ind.  609,  33  N.  E.  443;  People  v.  Wemple, 
117  N.  Y.  136,  27  Am.  St.  Eep.  542,  22  N.  E.  1046,  6  L.  E.  A.  303. 


133  Commerce.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3 

state  to  levy  such  taxes,321  if  they  are  not  essentially  burdens 
upon  commerce.322  A  direct  tax  upon  commerce,  such  as  that 
for  keeping  an  office  in  the  state,  is  void  as  to  railroads  en- 
gaged in  interstate  commerce,323  but  a  tax  assessed  against  a 
corporation  having  power  to  engage  in  foreign  or  interstate 
commerce  is  not  void  unless  the  corporation  is  actually  so  en- 
gaged.324 A  tax  upon  corporate  property  or  franchises  based 
upon  the  capital  employed  in  the  state  is  not  void  merely  because 
the  capital  may  be  invested  in  shipping;325  nor  because  some 
of  it  may  be  represented  by  imported  articles  in  original  pack- 
ages.326 The  fact  that  a  corporation  is  engaged  in  the  service 
of  the  United  States  will  not  exempt  its  property  from  taxation 
where  Congress  has  not  expressly  exempted  it.327 

Transportation  companies  are  subject  to  state  taxation.328 
although  a  tax  imposed  upon  transportation  itself  is  void.329 

321  Erie  E.  E.  v.  Pennsylvania,  158  U.  S.  437,  15  S.  Ct.  900,  39 
L.  ed.  1043. 

322  Commonwealth  v.  Smith,  92  Ky.  38,  36  Am.  St.  Eep.  578,  17 
S.  W.  187. 

32S  Norfolk  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Pennsylvania,  136  IT.  S.  120,  10  S.  Ct.  958, 
34  L.  ed.  394. 

324  Honduras  Com.  Co.  v.  State  Board,  54  N.  J.  L.  278,  23  Atl. 
668. 

325  Delaware  E.  E.  Tax  Case,  18  Wall.  232,  21  L.  ed.  888;  Barney 
v.  Tax  Collector,  2  Bail.  654;  South  Carolina  v.  Charleston,  4  Eieh. 
289. 

326  New  York  v.  Eoberts,  171  U.  S.  665,  19  S.  Ct.  70,  43  L.  ed. 
323. 

32.7  Lane  County  v.  Oregon,  7  Wall.  77,  19  L.  ed.  101;  Thomson 
v.  Pacific  E.  E.,  9  Wall.  591,  19  L.  ed.  792;  Pullman  Car  Co.  v.  Penn- 
sylvania, 141  IT.  S.  22,  11  S.  Ct.  878,  35  L.  ed.  613;  Central  etc.  E.  E. 
v.  California,  162  IT.  S.  121,  16  S.  Ct.  777,  40  L.  ed.  906. 

328  The  Delaware  E.  E.  Tax,  18  Wall.  232,  21  L.  ed.  888;  Erie 
Ey.  v.  Pennsylvania,  21  Wall.  498,  22  L.  ed.  595;  State  Eailroad 
Tax  Cases,  92  IT.  S.  611,  23  L.  ed.  663;  Pittsburgh  Ey.  v.  Backus,  154 
IT.  S.  431,  14  S.  Ct.  1118,  38  L.  ed.  1031;  Adams  Exp.  Co.  v.  Ohio, 
165  IT.  S.  226,  17  S.  Ct.  311,  41  L.  ed.  683;  State  v.  Philadelphia  etc. 
S.  S.  Co.,  45  Md.  381,  24  Am.  Eep.  516;  People  v.  Central  etc.  E.  E., 
43  Cal.  398;  Piedmont  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Eeidsville,  101  N.  C.  407,  8  S.  E. 
126. 

329  Osborne  v.  Mobile,  16  Wall.  4S1,  21  L.  ed.  470;  Fargo  v.  Michi- 
gan, 121  IT.  S.  243,  7  S.  Ct.  857,  30  L.  ed.  888;  State  v.  Cumber- 
land etc.  E.  E.,  40  Md.  48. 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3  Commerce.  134 

A  tax  upon  faros  and  freights  received  for  transportation  U 
virtually  a  tax  upon  transportation,330  and  cannot  be  upheld 
under  the  plea  that  it  is  a  tax  upon  a  franchise  granted  by 
the  state.331  Accordingly,  a  tax  upon  gross  receipts  derived 
from  interstate  or  foreign  transportation  is  void,332  but  the 
mere  reference  to  gross  receipts  as  a  basis  for  determining  the 
amount  of  a  tax  does  not  constitute  the  tax  one  upon  the  gross 
receipts.333  A  tax  upon  the  receiving  and  landing  of  passengers 
is  a  tax  upon  transportation  and  so  void.334  A  tax  upon 
passengers  leaving  a  state  has  been  held  void,  not  as  a  tax 
upon  commerce,  but  as  abridging  the  right  of  citizens  to  pass 
freely  through  every  part  of  the  United  States.335 

Express  companies  may  be  taxed  upon  their  property  within 
the  state,336  and  such  a  tax  is  not  one  upon  interstate  commerce, 

830  Philadelphia  etc.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  122  U.  S.  342,  7  S.  Ct. 
1118,  30  L.  ed.  1200;  Brennan  v.  Titusville,  153  TJ.  S.  308,  14  S.  Ct. 
829,  38  L.  ed.  719;  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Alabama,  132  U.  S. 
473,  10  S.  Ct.  162,  33  L.  ed.  409;  Vermont  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Vermont 
Cent.  Ey.  Co,  63  Vt.  1,  22  Atl.  262,  10  L.  E.  A.  562. 

331  Case  of  State  Freight  Tax,  15  Wall.  273,  21  L.  ed.  146;  Phil- 
adelphia etc.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  122  U.  S.  342,  7  S.  Ct.  1118,  30 
L.  ed.  1200;  Coit  v.  Sutton,  102  Mich.  327,  60  N.  W.  691,  25  L.  E.  A. 
819. 

332  Fargo  v.  Michigan,  121  U.  S.  243,  7  S.  Ct.  857,  30  L.  ed.  888; 
Philadelphia  etc.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  122  TJ.  S.  342,  7  S.  Ct.  1118; 
30  L.  ed.  1200;  Erie  E.  E.  v.  Pennsylvania,  158  TJ.  S.  437,  15  S.  Ct. 
900,  39  L.  ed.  1043;  Northern  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Barnes,  2  N.  Dak.  351, 
51  X.  W.  397;  Indiana  v.  American  Exp.  Co.,  7  Biss.  230,  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  7021;  State  v.  Pullman  Palace  Car  Co.,  11  Biss.  566,  16  Fed. 
200;  but  sfte  Eeading  E.  E.  v.  Pennsylvania,  15  Wall.  296,  21  L.  ed. 
164. 

333  Maine  v.  Grand  Trunk  Ey.,  142  TJ.  S.  228,  12  S.  Ct.  121,  35 
L.  ed.  994;  New  York  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Pennsylvania,  158  TJ.  S.  440,  15 
S.  Ct.  900,  30  L.  ed.  1042;  Adams  Exp.  Co.  v.  Ohio,  165  TJ.  S.  220, 
17  S.  Ct.  309,  41  L.  ed.  683;  Erie  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  158  TJ.  S. 
440,  15  S.  Ct.  900,  30  L.  ed.  1013. 

334  Gloucester  Ferry  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  114  TJ.  S.  203,  5  S.  Ct. 
826,  29  L.  ed.  158. 

335  Crandall  v.  Nevada,  6  Wall.  49,  IS  L.  ed.  745;  Treasurer  v. 
Philadelphia  etc.  E.  E.,  4  Houst.  1S9. 

336  Adams  Express  Co.  v.  Ohio,  165  TJ.  S.  220,  17  S.  Ct.  305,  41  L. 
ed.  683;  Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.  v.  Crawford  County,  63  Ark.  588,  40 
S.  W.  713,  37  L.  E.  A.  371. 


135  Commerce.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3 

although  the  companies  taxed  do  an  interstate  business.337  Ex- 
press companies  which  confine  their  business  to  interstate  or 
foreign  transportation  are  exempt  from  state  taxation  or  regu- 
lation; but  if  they  engage  also  in  domestic  commerce,  they  are 
subject  to  state  taxation  and  regulation  to  that  extent.338  Prop- 
erty within  the  state  may  be  taxed  on  the  basis  of  the  propor- 
tion it  bears  to  the  whole,339  and  gross  earnings  may  be  taken 
as  the  measure  of  a  property  tax  as  in  the  case  of  other  cor- 
porations;340 but  at  the  same  time  the  tax  must  be  upon  the 
property  of  the  company,  and  not  upon  the  business  of  inter- 
state carriage.341 

Telegraphic  communication  is  commerce,  and  if  between  the 
states  it  is  free  from  state  control,342  but  the  property  of  a  tele- 
graph company  is  subject  to  state  taxation.343  A  municipal 
tax    on    foreign    telegraph    companies    expressly  restricted  to 

337  Pacific  Express  Co.  v.  Seibert,  142  IT.  S.  350,  12  S.  Ct.  250,  35 
L.   ed.  ]035. 

33S  United  States  Exp.  Co.  v.  Hemmingway,  39  Fed.  60;  Osborn 
v.  State,  33  Fla.  162,  39  Am.  St.  Eep.  99,  14  South.  590,  25  L.  E.  A. 
120. 

339  Adams  Exp.  Co.  v.  Ohio,  165  U.  S.  220,  17  S.  Ct.  305,  41  L. 
ed.  6S3. 

340  Adams  Exp.  Co.  v.  Ohio,  165  U.  S.  220,  17  S.  Ct.  305,  41  L.  ed. 
683;  Wolcott  v.  People,  17  Mich.  68;  American  Union  Exp.  Co.  v. 
St.  Joseph,  66  Mo.  675,  27  Am.  Eep.  382;  Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Hood, 
15  Rich.  66,  94  Am.  Dec.  141;  State  v.  State  Board,  3  S.  Dak.  388, 
53  N.  W.   192. 

3Ji  United  States  Exp.  Co.  v.  Allen,  39  Fed.  714;  Commonwealth 
v.  Smith,  92  Ky.  38,  17  S.  W.  187. 

34-2  Leloup  v.  Mobile,  127  U.  S.  645,  8  S.  Ct.  1380,  32  L.  ed.  311; 
Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Alabama  Bd.  etc.,  132  U.  S.  477,  10  S.  Ct. 
163,  33  L.  ed.  409,  reversing  80  Ala.  273,  60  Am.  Eep.  99;  Western 
Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Texas,  105  U.  S.  460,  26  L.  ed.  1067. 

340  Leloup  v.  Mobile,  127  U.  S.  649,  8  S.  Ct.  1380,  32  L.  ed.  311; 
Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Missouri,  190  U.  S.  412,  23  S.  Ct.  730,  47 
L.  ed.  1116;  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Taggart,  163  U.  S.  18,  16 
S.  Ct.  1054,  41  L.  ed.  49;  Atlantic  &  Pacific  Tel.  Co.  v.  Philadelphia, 
190  U.  S.  160,  23  S.  Ct.  S17,  47  L.  ed.  995;  Postal  Tel.  Cable  Co.  v. 
Adams,  155  U.  S.  688,  15  S.  Ct.  268,  39  L.  ed.  311,  affirming  71  Miss. 
555,  42  Am.  St.  Eep.  476,  14  South.  36;  Postal  Tel.  Co.  v.  Richmond, 
99  Va.  102,  S6  Am.  St.  Rep.  877,  37  S.  E.  789;  Attorney  General  v. 
Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  33  Fed.  129. 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3  Commerce.  136 

business  exclusively  within  the  city  is  valid.344  Messages  car- 
ried and  delivered  within  the  state  are  subject  to  taxa- 
tion,345 and  while  a  state  carmot  tax  a  telegraph  company 
on  its  interstate  business,  the  fact  that  a  tax  is  assessed  with- 
out apportionment  as  between  domestic  and  interstate  business 
docs  not  render  it  wholly  void,  but  only  as  to  the  proportion  of 
interstate  business.346  That  a  message,  in  order  to  pass  between 
two  points  in  the  same  state,  must  traverse  another  state,  does 
not  make  the  transmission  interstate  commerce.347  A  tax  upon 
telegraph  companies  based  upon  the  length  of  lines  within  the 
state,  in  lieu  of  all  other  taxes,  is  substantially  a  tax  upon  prop- 
erty.348 Gross  receipts  or  capital  or  value  of  property,  may  be 
taken  as  a  basis  for  the  assessment  of  taxes.349  The  sending  of 
interstate  telephone  messages  cannot  be  enjoined  because  the 
company  has  not  paid  its  taxes.350 

344  Postal  Tel.  Cable  Co.  v.  Charleston,  153  U.  S.  699,  14  S.  Ct. 
1094,  33  L.  ed.  871. 

345  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Alabama  Board,  132  U.  S.  473,  10 
S.  Ct.  161,  33  L.  ed.  409;  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  City  Council, 
56  Fed.  422;  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Fremont,  39  Neb.  706,  58  N. 
W.  419,  26  L.  E.   A.   698. 

346  Eatterman  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  127  U.  S.  427,  8  S.  Ct. 
1127,  32  L.  ed.  229;  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  128 
U.  S.  39,  9  S.  Ct.  6,  32  L.  ed.  345;  People  v.  Terney,  57  Hun,  327,  10 
N.  Y.  Supp.  940;  Philadelphia  v.  American  Union  Tel.  Co.,  167  Pa. 
St.    406,    31    Atl.    628. 

347  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Eeynolds,  100  Va.  459,  93  Am.  St. 
Eep.   971,  41  S.   E.   856. 

348  Postal  Tel.  Cable  Co.  v.  Adams,  155  U.  S.  688,  15  S.  Ct.  .268, 
39  L.  ed.  37,  affirming  71  Miss.  555,  42  Am.  St.  Eep.  476,  14  South. 
36;  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Tyler,  90  Va.  297,  44  Am.  St.  Eep. 
910,  18  S.  E.  280;  People  v.  Terney,  57  Hun,  357,  10  N.  Y.  Supp.  940; 
Philadelphia  v.  American  Union  Tel.  Co.,  167  Pa.  St.  406,  31  Atl. 
628.  But  see  Commonwealth  v.  Smith,  92  Ey.  38,  36  Am.  St.  Eep. 
578,  17  S.  W.  187. 

349  Massachusetts  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  141  U.  S.  40,  11  S.  Ct. 
889,  35  L.  ed.  628;  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  State,  80  Ala.  273,  60 
Am.  Eep.  99;  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Mayer,  28  Ohio  St.  521; 
Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Commonwealth,  110  Pa.  St.  405,  20  Atl. 
720. 

350  In  re  Pennsylvania  Teh  Co.,  48  N.  J.  Eq.  91,  27  Am.  St.  Eep. 
462,  20   Atl.   846. 


137  Commerce.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3 

The  instruments  and  vehicles  of  interstate  commerce  may  be 
taxed  by  the  states.351  The  mere  fact  that  they  are  used  in  in- 
terstate commerce  does  not  render  their  taxation  by  the  state 
•where  they  are  used  invalid,352  and  the  fact  that  the  value  of 
such  property  arises  from  its  use  in  interstate  commerce  is  im- 
material so  long  as  the  tax  imposes  no  additional  burden  on 
that  commerce,353  and  provided  the  powers  of  the  national  gov- 
ernment are  not  interfered  with.354  Accordingly,  a  state  may 
tax  sleeping-cars,355  refrigerator-cars,356  and  vessels.357  Such 
a  tax  may  be  based  upon  the  average  number  of  cars  in  the  state 
at  the  time  the  assessment  is  made,358  or  upon  the  ratio  of  local 

351  Morgan  v.  Barham,  16  Wall.  475,  21  L.  ed.  303;  Covington 
etc.  Bridge  Co.  v.  Kentucky,  154  U.  S.  212,  14  S.  Ct.  1087,  38  L.  ed. 
962. 

35?  Marye  v.  Baltimore  etc.  B.  B.,  127  IT.  S.  124,  8  S.  Ct.  1037,  32 
L.  ed.  94;  Pullman's  Palace  Car.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  141  U.  S.  23, 
11  S.  Ct.  876,  35  L.  ed.  613;  Massachusetts  v.  Western  Union  TeL 
Co.,  141  U.  S.  45,  11  S.  Ct.  8S9,  35  L.  ed.  628. 

3'53  Cleveland  etc.  By.  v.  Backus,  154  U.  S.  445,  14  S.  Ct.  1122, 
38  L.  ed.  1041;  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Norman,  77  Fed.  23;  State 
v.  Stephens,  146  Mo.  681,  69  Am.  St.  Bep.  636,  48  S.  W.  934. 

354  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Taggart,  163  U.  S.  14,  16  S.  Ct.  1054, 
41  L.  ed.  49. 

355  Pullman's  Palace  Car  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  141  U.  S.  18,  11  S. 
Ct.  876,  35  L.  ed.  613;  Pullman's  Palace  Car  Co.  v.  Hay  ward,  141 
U.  S.  36,  11  S.  Ct.  883,  35  L.  ed.  621,  affirming  107  Pa.  St.  148;  Pull- 
man Co.  v.  Adams,  189  U.  S.  420,  23  S.  Ct.  494,  47  L.  ed.  877.  But 
see  Pickard  v.  Pullman  etc.  Car  Co.,  117  U.  S.  51,  8  S.  Ct.  635,  29  L. 
ed.  785. 

356  American  etc.  Transit  Co.  v.  Hall,  174  U.  S.  82,  19  S.  Ct.  604, 
43  L.  ed.  899,  affirming  24  Colo.  301,  65  Am.  St.  Bep.  228,  51  Pac. 
425,  56  L.  B.  A.  89;  Linehan  etc.  Transf.  Co.  v.  Pendergass,  70  Fed. 
2;  Eeinluirt  v.  McDonald,  76  Fed.  405;  Transit  Co.  v.  Lynch,  18  Utah, 
394,  55  Pac.  643,  4S  L.  B.  A.  790. 

357  Hays  v.  Bacific  Mail  S.  S.  Co.,  17  How.  596,  15  L.  ed.  254; 
Morgan  v.  Parham,  16  Wall.  471;  Wheeling  etc.  Transp.  Co.  v.  Wheel- 
ing, 99  U.  S.  273,  25  L.  ed.  412,  affirming  9  W.  Va.  170,  27  Am. 
Bep.  552;  Battle  v.  Mobile,  9  Ala.  234,  44  Am.  Dec.  438. 

35  8  American  etc.  Transit  Co.  v.  Hall,  174  U.  S.  81,  19  S.  Ct.  604, 
43  L.  ed.  899. 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3  Commerce.  133 

mileage  to  the  company's  capital.359     Rolling  stock  merely  pass- 
ing through  a  state,  however,  is  not  subject  to  taxation.360 

Licenses  or  Privilege  Taxes. 


States  may  impose  license  taxes  upon  trades,  avocations,  or 
professions  carried  on  within  their  borders,  although  the  goods 
dealt  in  are  manufactured  in  other  states,361  provided  such  taxes 
do  not  discriminate  in  favor  of  their  own  products  as  against 
those  of  other  states.362  And  this  power  may  delegated  to 
municipalities.363 

A  state  may  exact  licenses  for  sales  of  goods  in  the  vendor's 
actual  possession  within  the  state,364  and  the  fact  that  title  is 
in  a  nonresident  is  immaterial.365     A  law  exacting  a  license  tax 

359  Pullman's  Car  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  141  U.  S.  23,  11  S.  Ct. 
878,  35  L.  ed.  613;  Cleveland  etc.  Ey.  v.  Backus,  154  TJ.  S.  445,  14 
S.  Ct.  1124,  38  L.  ed.  1041. 

360  Bain  v.  Eiclimond  etc.  E.  E.,  105  N.  C.  363,  18  Am.  St.  Eep. 
912,  11  S.  E.  311,  8  L.  E.  A.  299. 

361  Brown  v.  Maryland,  12  Wheat.  441,  6  L.  ed.  678;  Nathan  v. 
Louisiana,  8  How.  73,  12  L.  ed.  992;  Duer  v.  Small,  4  Blatchf.  267, 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  4116;  Osborne  v.  Mobile,  44  Ala.  499;  Galveston  Co. 
v.  Gorkani,  49  Tex.  279;  State  v.  Gorham,  115  N.  C.  721,  44  Am.  St. 
Eep.  494,  20  S.  E.  179,  25  L.  E.  A.  810;  Charleston  v.  Oliver,  16  S.  C. 
47;  In  re  Budolph,  6  Saw.  L'95,  2  Fed.  65;  Ex  parte  Eobinson,  12  Nev. 
263,  28  Am.  Eep.  794. 

362  Ward  v.  Maryland,  12  Wall.  430,  20  L.  ed.  449;  Conner  v. 
Elliott,  18  How.  593,  15  L.  ed.  497;  Woodruff  v.  Parham,  8  Wall. 
123,  19  L.  ed.  382;  Welton  v.  Missouri,  91  U.  S.  275,  23  L.  ed.  347; 
Missouri  v.  North,  27  Mo.  464;  State  v.  French,  109  N.  C.  722,  26 
Am.  St.  Eep.  590,  14  S.  E.  383. 

363  Downham  v.  Alexandria,  10  Wall.  173,  19  L.  ed.  929;  Logans- 
port  v.  Seybold,  59  Ind.  225;  Chilvers  v.  People,  11  Mich.  43;  People 
v.  Babcock,  11  Wend.  5S6;  Little  Bock  v.  Prather,  49  Ark.  477;  Wig- 
gins Ferry  Co.  v.  East  St.  Louis,  102  111.  574. 

364  Eniert  v.  Missouri,  156  U.  S.  311,  15  S.  Ct.  367,  39  L.  ed.  430; 
Patapsco  Guano  Co.  v.  North  Carolina,  171  U.  S.  359,  18  S.  Ct.  S62, 
43  L.  ed.  191;  Oliver  Finney  Grocery  Co.  v.  Speed,  87  Fed.  415;  Dun- 
can v.  State,  105  Ga.  457,  30  S.  E.  755;  Eash  v.  Farley,  91  Ky.  344, 
34  Am.  St.  Eep.  233,  15  S.  W.  862;  State  v.  Montgomery,  92  Me.  440, 
43  Atl.  16. 

365  South  Bend  v.  Martin,  142  Ind.  46,  41  N.  E.  319,  29  L.  E.  A. 
531. 


139  Commerce.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3 

for  the  privilege  of  carrying  on  interstate  commerce  is  void,306 
as  is  also  a  law  discriminating  in  favor  of  domestic  goods  as 
against  those  produced  in  other  states.367  A  tax  upon  convict- 
made  goods  manufactured  in  other  states  is  void  on  this 
ground.368  A  statute  restricting  the  right  to  licenses  to  resi- 
dents is  clearly  invalid  as  placing  a  burden  upon  commerce.369 

The  right  to  sell  intoxicating  liquors  cannot  he  exercised  un- 
der a  federal  license  contrary  to  state  laws;  such  a  license  is  in 
the  nature  of  a  receipt  for  the  federal  tax,370  and  state  laws 
may  impose  another  license  tax,371  or  authorize  municipalities 
to  do  so,372  and  a  license  under  the  internal  revenue  laws  is  no 
bar  to  a  prosecution  under  state  law  for  selling  without  a  state 

366  Crutcher  v.  Kentucky,  141  TJ.  S.  58',  11  S.  Ct.  851,35  L.  ed.  649; 
Georgia  etc.  Co.  v.  Mayor,  6  Fed.  780;  Aultman  v.  Holder,  68  Fed. 
471;  Commonwealth  v.  Smith,  92  Ky.  42,  36  Am.  St.  Eep.  580,  17 
S.  W.  1S8;  Osborne  v.  State,  33  Fla.  162,  39  Am.  St.  Eep.  99,  14 
South.  588,  25  L.  E,  A.  120. 

367  Ward  v.  Maryland,  12  Wall.  418,  20  L.  ed.  449;  Guy  v.  Balti- 
more, 100  U.  S.  434,  25  L.  ed.  743;  Georgia  etc.  Co.  v.  Macon,  60  Fed. 
774,  22  L.  E.  A.  775;  Ex  parte  Thomas,  71  Cal.  204,  12  Pac.  53; 
Carson  v.  State,  57  Md.  251;  Vines  v.  State,  67  Ala.  73;  Powell  v. 
State,  69  Ala.  10;  Albertson  v.  Wallace,  81  N.  C.  479. 

368  Arnold  v.  Tanders,  56  Ohio  St.  417,  60  Am.  St.  Eep.  753,  47  N.  E. 
50;  People  v.  Hawkins,  157  N.  Y.  1,  68  Am.  St.  Eep.  736,  51  N.  E.  257, 
42  L.  E.  A.  490. 

369  Sayre  v.  Phillips,  148  Pa.  St.  482,  33  Am.  St.  Eep.  842,  24  Atl. 
76,  16  L.  E.  A.  49. 

370  License  Cases,  5  Wall.  470,  18  L.  ed.  497;  McGuire  v.  Com- 
monwealth, 3  Wall.  387,  18  L.  ed.  226;  Pervear  v.  Commonwealth, 
5  Wall.  475,  18  L.  ed.  608. 

371  Gilman  v.  Philadelphia,  3  Wall.  730,  18  L.  ed.  96;  McGuire  v. 
Commonwealth,  3  Wall.  3S7,  18  L.  ed.  226;  Kohn  v.  Melcher,  29  Fed. 
433;  Bertholf  v.  O'Beilly,  74  N.  Y.  509,  30  Am.  Eep.  323;  Metro- 
politan Board  v.  Barrie,  34  N.  Y.  G57;  Ex  parte  Christensen,  85  Cal. 
208,  24  Pac.  747;  Keller  v.  State,  11  Md.  525,  65  Am.  Dec.  226;  Com- 
monwealth v.  Kimball,  24  Pick.  359,  35  Am.  Dec.  326;  Santo  v. 
State,  2  Iowa,  165,  63  Am.  Dec.  487;  State  v.  Moore,  14  N.  H.  451; 
State  v.  Peckham,  3  E.  I.  289;  City  v.  Aherns,  4  Strob.  241. 

372  Downham  v.  Alexandria,  10  Wall.  173,  19  L.  ed.  929;  Beall  v. 
State,  4  Blackf.  107;  Lunt's  Case,  6  Me.  412.  See,  also,  Huntington 
v.  Cheesbro,  57  Ind.  74. 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3  Commerce.  140 

license.373  While,  however,  a  state  may  prohibit  sales  alto- 
gether, if  it  merely  attempts  to  restrict  and  regulate  traffic  in 
intoxicating  liquors  by  imposing  a  license  tax,  such  a  tax  must 
operate  uniformly  upon  domestic  and  imported  liquors.374  Ac- 
cordingly, a  statute  imposing  a  license  fee  upon  wholesale  liquor 
dealers,  whose  products  are  manufactured  without  the  state, 
and  imposing  no  wholesaler's  license  on  resident  manufacturers, 
but  a  less  onerous  manufacturer's  license,  is  void.375 

A  state  law  defining  who  are  peddlers  and  imposing  an  annual 
tax  upon  all  peddlers,  without  regard  to  the  place  where  their 
wares  are  manufactured,  is  not  void  as  imposing  a  burden  upon 
importers.376  The  test  of  the  constitutionality  of  license  laws 
relating  to  hawkers  and  peddlers  is  whether  they  discriminate 
in  favor  of  domestic  goods.377  The  form  which  the  discrimina- 
tion takes  is  immaterial;378  if  the  effect  is  to  discriminate,  the 
law  is  void — e.  g,  a  provision  that  as  to  foreign  goods  a  license 
shall  entitle  the  licensee  to  peddle  only  in  the  county  where  it  is 

373  Pervear  v.  Commonwealth,  5  Wall.  478,  18  L.  ed.  608;  Com- 
monwealth v.  Owens,  114  Mass.  252;  Daniels  v.  McCabe,  3  Cliff.  117, 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  3567;  Boyd  v.  State,  12  Lea,  689. 

374  Tiernan  v.  Einker,  102  U.  S.  127,  26  L.  ed.  103;  Walling  v. 
Michigan,  106  U.  S.  454,  6  S.  Ct.  454,  29  L.  ed.  691;  State  v.  Stilsing, 
52  K  J.  L.  517,  20  Atl.  65;  Sinclair  v.  State,  69  N.  C.  47. 

375  State  v.  Zaphey,  14  S.  Dak.  119,  86  Am.  St.  Bep.  741,  84  N.  W. 
391. 

376  Howe  Machine  Co.  v.  Gage,  100  TJ.  S.  679,  25  L.  ed.  754;  Enrert 
v.  Missouri,  156  TJ.  S.  296,  15  S.  Ct.  367,  39  L.  ed.  430,  affirming  103 
Mo.  241,  23  Am.  St.  Bep.  874,  15  S.  W.  81,  11  L.  E.  A.  219;  American 
Harrow  Co.  v.  Shaffer,  68  Fed.  755;  In  re  May,  82  Fed.  425;  State 
v.  Gorham,  115  N.  C.  727,  44  Am.  St.  Bep.  496,  20  S.  E.  181,  25  L. 
B.  A.  810;  State  v.  Eichards,  32  W.  Va.  353,  9  S.  E.  247,  3  L.  E.  A. 
705;  The  Stella  Block  v.  Eichland,  26  La.  Ann.  642;  Commonwealth 
v.  Ober,  12  Cush.  493;  State  v.  Smithson,  106  Mo.  149,  17  S.  W.  221; 
Ex  parte  Eobinson,  12  Nev.  263,  28  Am.  Bep.  794;  Wrought  Iron 
Eange  Co.  v.  Carver,  318  N.  C.  328,  24  S.  E.  352;  Morrill  v.  State, 
38  Wis.  428,  20  Am.  Bep.  12;  Sears  v.  Warren  County,  36  Ind.  267, 
10  Am.  Eep.  62. 

377  Welton  v.  Missouri,  91  U.  S.  275,  23  L.  ed.  347;  In  re  Watson, 
15  Fed.  511;  Preston  v.  Finley,  72  Fed.  855;  Vines  v.  State,  67  Ala. 
73;  Bodgers  v.  McCoy,  6  Dak.  238,  44  N.  W.  990;  State  v.  Browning, 
62  Mo.  591;  State  v.  Pratt,  59  Vt.  590,  9  Atl.  556. 

378  Welton  v.  Missouri,  91  TJ.  S.  275,  23  L.  ed.  347. 


Ill  Commerce.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3 

taken  out,379  restricting  the  right  to  licenses  to  residents,380  or 
requiring  licenses  only  in  cases  of  sales  by  nonresidents,381  or 
sales  of  foreign  goods,382  imposing  a  higher  tax  upon  nonresi- 
dent peddlers.383 

A  distinction  is  drawn  between  license  laws  applying  to  hawk- 
ers and  peddlers  and  those  applying  to  commercial  travelers  or 
solicitors  taking  orders  for  goods  to  be  shipped  into  the  state,384 
and  the  fact  that  a  license  law  does  not  discriminate  against 
commercial  travelers  or  solicitors  for  nonresident  dealers  is  im- 
material; all  such  laws  are  void  so  far  as  they  are  applicable 
to  sales  or  orders  for  goods  to  be  shipped  into  the  state.385  A 
statute  imposing  a  license  tax  upon  drummers,  soliciting  within 

379  Vines  v.  State,  67  Ala.   73. 

380  Marshalltown  v.  Blum,  58  Iowa,  184,  43  Am.  Eep.  116,  12  N.  - 
W.  266. 

381  Graffty  v.  Kushville,  107  Ind.  502,  57  Am.  Eep.  128,  8  N.  E. 
609;  Ex  parte  Bliss,  63  N.  H.  135. 

382  State  v.  Furbush,  72  Me.  493. 

383  Sayre  Borough  v.  Phillips,  148  Pa.  St.  482,  33  Am.  St.  Rep.  842, 
24  Atl.  76,  16  L.  E.  A.  49;  Commonwealth  v.  Myer,  92  Va.  809,  23 
S.  E.  915,  31  L.  E.  A.  379. 

384  Emert  v.  Missouri,  156  U.  S.  311,  15  S.  Ct.  367,  39  L.  ed.  430, 
affirming  103  Mo.  241,  23  Am.  St.  Eep.  874,  15  S.  W.  81,  11  L.  E.  A. 
219;  Asher  v.  Texas,  12S  TJ.  S.  132,  9  S.  Ct.  1,  32  L.  ed.  368;  Brennan 
v.  Titusville,  153  TJ.  S.  302,  14  S.  Ct.  289,  38  L.  ed.  719,  reversing 
145  Pa.  St.  504,  24  Am.  St.  Eep.  580,  22  Atl.  893. 

385  Asher  v.  Texas,  128  TJ.  S.  132,  9  S.  Ct.  1,  32  L.  ed.  368;  Stockard 
v.  Morgan,  185  TJ.  S.  37,  22  S.  Ct.  576,  46  L.  ed.  785;  In  re  Kimmel, 
41  Fed.  775;  In  re  Houston,  47  Fed.  539;  State  v.  Lagarde,  60  Fed. 
186;  In  re  Mitchell,  62  Fed.  576;  Ex  parte  Hough,  69  Fed.  330;  In  re 
Tinsman,  95  Fed.  560;  Ex  parte  Green,  114  Fed.  959;  State  v.  Ager, 
83  Ala.  110,  3  South.  856;  Ex  parte  Murray,  93  Ala.  78,  8  South.  868; 
Bloomington  v.  Bourland,  137  111.  534,  31  Am.  St.  Eep.  382,  27  N.  S. 
G92;  McLaughlin  v.  South  Bend,  126  Ind.  471,  26  N.  E.  185,  10  L.  E. 
A.  357;  Martin  v.  Eosedale,  130  Ind.  109,  29  N.  E.  410;  Simmons 
Hardware  Co.  v.  McGuire,  39  La.  Ann.  848,  2  South.  592;  Ex  parte 
Eosenblatt,  19  Nev.  439,  3  Am.  St.  Eep.  901,  14  Pac.  298;  State  v. 
Bracco,  103  N.  C.  349,  9  S.  E.  404;  State  v.  O'Connor,  5  1ST.  Dak. 
629,  67  N.  W.  824;  Taibutt  v.  State,  39  Tex.  Cr.  64,  73  Am.  St.  Eep. 
903,  44  S.  W.  1091;  Hnrford  v.  State,  91  Tenn.  699,  20  S.  W.  201; 
Adkins  v.  Eichmond,  98  Va.  91,  81  Am.  St.  Eep.  705,  34  S.  E.  967, 
47  L.  E.  A.  583.  But  see  In  re  Eudolph,  2  Fed.  65;  Ex  parte  Hanson, 
2S  Fed.  127;  Mock  v.  Commonwealth,  6  Bush,  397;  Cole  v.  Eandolph, 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3  Commerce.  142 

a  certain  district,  who  do  not  represent  regularly  licensed 
Louses,  is  void  as  to  solicitors  for  foreign  goods,  although  it 
purported  to  operate  on  all  drummers  alike;386  a  fortiori,  a 
statute  discriminatory  in  character  is  void.3S7  The  fact  that 
goods  for  which  orders  are  taken  are  at  the  time  in  a  warehouse 
within  the  state,  which  is  replenished  from  time  to  time  by  the 
nonresident  principal,  does  not  deprive  the  solicitor's  business 
of  its  interstate  character.388  So  an  agent  engaged  in  distrib- 
uting goods  previously  sold  by  sample  is  engaged  in  interstate 
commerce;389  but  the  incorporation  of  goods  with  the  mass  of 
property  in  the  state  deprives  them  of  their  character  as  sub- 
jects of  interstate  commerce,390  and  where  one  takes  orders 
which  he  submits  to  a  nonresident  manufacturer  in  his  own 
name,  who  ships  the  goods  to  the  solicitor  in  a  single  package, 
which  is  broken  by  him,  the  latter  sells  as  owner  and  not  as 
agent.391  The  occupation  of  a  resident  engaged  in  a  general 
business  is  subject  to  a  license  tax,  notwithstanding  the  business 
consists  in  negotiating  sales  for  nonresidents.392 

Brokers  dealing  in  money  and  exchange  are  subject  to  a  license 

31  La.  Ann.  535;  State  v.  Long,  95  N.  C.  582,  59  Am.  Eep.  263;  Ex 
parte  Asher,  23  Tex.  App.  662,  59  Am.  Kep.  783,  5  S.  W.  91;  Speer 
v.  Commonwealth,  23  Gratt.  935,  14  Am.  Eep.  164. 

386  Bobbins  v.  Shelby  County  Tax.  Dist.,  120  U.  S.  479,  7  S.  Ct. 
592,  30  L.  ed.  694. 

387  Corson  v.  Maryland,  120  U.  S.  505,  7  S.  Ct.  655,  30  L.  ed.  699; 
Ex  parte  Thornton,  12  Fed.  538;  In  re  Hennick,  5  Mackey,  489; 
Commonwealth  v.  Smith,  6  Bush,  303. 

388  In  re  Nichols,  48  Fed.  164;  In  re  Tyerman,  48  Fed.  167.  But 
contra,  Haynes  v.  Briggs,  41  Fed.  468,  as  to  goods  previously  shipped 
in  and  stored  to  be  sold  by  agents. 

389  Huntington  v.  Mahan,  142  Ind.  695,  51  Am.  St.  Eep.  200,  42 
N.  E.  463;  State  v.  Willingham,  9  Wyo.  290,  87  Am.  St.  Eep.  948, 
62  Pac.   797,   52   L.   E.   A.   198. 

300  In  re  Wilson,  19  D.  C.  341,  12  L.  E.  A.  624;  State  v.  Mont- 
gomery, 94  Me.  192,  80  Am.  St.  Eep.  165,  47  Atl.  165. 

301  Croy  v.  Obion  County,  104  Tehn.  525,  78  Am.  St.  Eep.  931, 
51  L.  E.  A.  254;  State  v.  Gorham,  115  N.  C.  721,  44  Am.  St.  Eep. 
494,  20  S.  E.  179,  25  L.  E.  A.  810. 

392  Ficklen  v.  Shelby  County,  145  U.  S.  21,  12  S.  Ct.  810,  36  L.  ed. 
60L 


143  Commeece.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3 

tax ;  such  a  tax  is  not  a  burden  on  commerce,393  but  a  tax  upon 
brokers  who  sell  goods  by  sample  for  nonresidents  is  within  the 
rule  as  to  drummers  and  solicitors.394  The  business  of  solicit- 
ing passenger  travel  over  interstate  roads  is  interstate  commerce, 
and  it  cannot  be  burdened  by  a  license  tax;395  but  a  state  may 
protect  its  industries  by  discouraging  the  business  of  soliciting 
laborers  to  leave  the  state  and  a  license  tax  imposed  upon  emi- 
grant brokers  does  not  contravene  the  commerce  power.396 

A  state  may  admit  foreign  corporations  to  do  business  within 
its  borders  upon  any  conditions  it  sees  fit  to  impose,  or  it  may 
exclude  them  entirely,397  and  in  prescribing  such  conditions  it 
may  discriminate  in  favor  of  its  own  corporations.398  The 
only  restriction  upon  the  state's  power  in  this  matter  is  in  respect 
to  corporations  engaged  in  federal  business  or  interstate  com- 

393  Nathan  v.  Louisiana,  S  How.  81,  12  L.  ed.  992,  affirming  12 
Bob.   32. 

394  In  re  Eozelle,  57  Fed.  155;  Stratford  v.  Montgomery,  110  Ala. 
619,  20  South.  127;  People  v.  Moving.  3  Abb.  Dec.  539. 

395  McCall  v.  California,  136  XL  S.  109,  10  S.  Ct.  S81,  34  L.  ed. 
391. 

39C  Williams  v.  Fears,  179  U.  S.  278,  21  S.  Ct.  128,  45  L.  ed.  186; 
Shepperd  v.  Sumter  County  Commissioners,  59  Ga.  535;  but  see 
Joseph  v.  Randolph,  71  Ala.  499,  46  Am.  Rep.  347. 

397  Bank  of  Augusta  v.  Earle,  13  Pet.  591,  10  L.  ed.  274;  Lafayette 
Ins.  Co.  v.  French,  18  How.  407,  15  L.  ed.  451;  Ducat  v.  Chicago, 
10  Wall.  415,  19  L.  ed.  972;  Doyle  v.  Continental  Ins.  Co.,  94  TJ.  S. 
540,  24  L.  ed.  148;  St.  Clair  v.  Cox,  106  U.  S.  356,  1  S.  Ct.  '354,  27 
L.  ed.  222;  Fritts  v.  Palmer,  132  TJ.  S.  288,  10  S.  Ct.  93,  33  L.  ed.  317; 
Horn  Silver  Min.  Co.  v.  New  York,  163  TJ.  S.  314,  12  S.  Ct.  403,  36 
L.  ed.  164;  Ashley  v.  Ryan,  153  TJ.  S.  441,  14  S.  Ct.  865,  38  L.  ed.  773; 
Orient  Ins.  Co.  v.  Daggs,  172  TJ.  S.  566,  19  S.  Ct.  281,  43  L.  ed.  552, 
affirming  136  Mo.  391,  58  Am.  St.  Eep.  641,  38  S.  W.  86,  35  L.  K.  A. 
227;  Dayton  Coal  Co.  v.  Barton,  183  TJ.  S.  24,  22  S.  Ct.  5,  46  L.  ed.  61; 
Williams  v.  Gaylord,  1S6  TJ.  S.  16S,  46  L.  ed.  1102. 

398  Ducat  v.  Chicago,  10  Wall.  415,  19  L.  ed.  972;  Blake  v.  MeClung, 
172  U.  S.  256,  19  S.  Ct.  172,  43  L.  ed.  432;  Philadelphia  etc.  Co.  v. 
New  York,  119  TJ.  S.  118,  7  S.  Ct.  112,  30  L.  ed.  342;  Manchester  Fire 
Ins.  Co.  v.  Herriott,  91  Fed.  718;  Pembina  Min.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania, 
125  TJ.  S.  188,  S  S.  Ct.  740,  31  L.  ed.  650;  Southern  etc.  Assn.  v.  Nor- 
man, 98  Ky.  304,  56  Am.  St.  Eep.  373,  32  S.  W.  954,  31  L.  E.  A. 
41;  Hartford  Ins.  Co.  v.  Eaymond,  70  Mich.  502,  38  N.  W.  474. 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3  Commerce.  Ill 

merce;399  a  state  cannot  impose  limitations  upon  the  right  to 
engage  in  interstate  commerce.400  That  the  restriction  assumes 
the  guise  of  a  license  tax  is  immaterial;401  the  state  cannot  de- 
clare that  the  right  to  engage  in  the  business  of  interstate  com- 
merce is  a  privilege,  and  impose  a  license  tax  for  the  exercise 
of  the  privilege,402  and  the  fact  that  a  company,  as  incidental 
to  its  main  business  of  transporting  goods  between  states,  does 
some  local  business,  does  not  warrant  the  imposition  of  a  license 
tax  upon  its  entire  business.403  A  privilege  tax  upon  sleeping- 
cars  is  void  as  applied  to  cars  used  in  interstate  transporta- 
tion,404 and  a  municipal  license  tax  imposed  upon  persons  en- 
gaged in  towing  and  lightering  is  a  burden  upon  interstate  com- 
merce, and  so  void;405  but  a  municipal  license  imposed  upon  a 

399  Pembina  Min.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  125  U.  S.  188,  8  S.  Ct.  840, 
31  L.  ed.  650;  Horn  Silver  Min.  Co.  v.  New  York,  143  U.  S.  314, 
12  S.  Ct.  403,  36  L.  ed.  164;  Waters  etc.  Oil  Co.  v.  Texas,  177  U.  S. 
45,  20  S.  Ct.  518,  44  L.  ed.  657;  Norfolk  etc.  By.  v.  Pennsylvania, 
136  U.  S.  118,  10  S.  Ct.  960,  34  L.  ed.  394;  Eyer  v.  Odd  Fellows'  etc. 
Assn.,  157  Mass.  373,  34  Am.  St.  Rep;  293,  32  N.  E.  472. 

400  Cooper  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Ferguson,  113  U.  S.  734,  5  S.  Ct.  739,  28 
L.  ed.  1137;  Pembina.  Min.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  125  U.  S.  185,  8 
S.  Ct.  841,  31  L.  ed.  650;  Merslion  v.  Pottsville  Lumber  Co.,  187  Pa. 
St.  12,  67  Am.  St.  Rep.  560,  40  Atl.  1019. 

401  Smith  v.  Alabama,  124  IT.  S.  474,  8  S.  Ct.  564,  31  L.  R.  A.  508-; 
Norfolk  etc.  Ry.  v.  Pennsylvania,  136  U.  S.  118,  10  S.  Ct.  960,  34  L. 
ed.  394;  Crutcher  v.  Kentucky,  141  U.  S.  56,  11  S.  Ct.  851,  35  L.  ed. 
649. 

402  Pensacola  Tel.  Co.  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  96  U.  S.  1,  24  L. 
ed.  708;  Cooper  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Ferguson,  113  U.  S.  727,  5  S.  Ct.  739, 
28  L.  ed.  1137;  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Massachusetts,  125  U.  S. 
530,  8  S.  Ct.  961,  31  L.  ed.  790;  Leloup  v.  Mobile,  127  U.  S.  640,  8  S. 
Ct.  1380,  32  L.  ed.  311;  reversing  76  Ala.  401;  St.  Clair  County  v. 
Interstate  etc.  Co.,  109  Fed.  741. 

403  Crutcher  v.  Kentucky,  141  U.  S.  56,  11  S.  Ct.  851,  35  L.  ed. 
649;  Commonwealth  v.  Smith,  92  Ky.  43,  36  Am.  St.  Rep.  581,  17 
S.  W.  188;  Woessner  v.  Cottam,  19  Tex.  Civ.  App.  615,  47  S.  W. 
6S0;  but  see  Osborn  v.  Mobile,  16  Wall.  482,  21  L.  ed.  470. 

404  Pickard  v.  Pullman  Car  Co.,  117  U.  S.  51,  6  S.  Ct.  635,  29 
L.  ed.  785;  Tennessee  v.  Pullman  etc.  Car  Co.,  117  U.  S.  52,  6  S.  Ct. 
643,  29  L.  ed.  785;  Pullman  etc.  Car  Co.  v.  Nolan,  22  Fed.  276. 

4u5  Moran  v.  New  Orleans,  112  U.  S.  74,  5  S.  Ct.  38,  28  L.  ed. 
653;  Harman  v.  Chicago,  147  U.  S.  407,  13  S.  Ct.  306,  37  L.  ed.  216, 
reversing  140  111.  374,  29  N.  E.  732;     St.  Louis  v.  Consolidated  Coal 


145  Commerce.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3 

public  exhibition  given  on  board  a  coasting  vessel  is  not  a  reg- 
ulation of  commerce,  but  a  mere  police  regulation.406  A  license 
fee  imposed  upon  corporations  for  business  done  exclusively 
within  a  state  is  valid,407  and  the  fact  that  telegraphic  messages 
transmitted  between  points  in  the  same  state  traverse  another 
state  en  route  does  not  give  them  an  interstate  commerce  char- 
acter.408 The  business  of  insurance  is  not  interstate  commerce, 
and  the  restrictions  of  this  clause  cannot  apply  to  licenses  im- 
posed on  foreign  insurance  companies.409 

Traffic  in  Original  Packages. 

The  right  to  import  carries  with  it  the  right  to  sell  the  pack- 
age or  bale  imported,  and  a  state  cannot  impose  a  tax  upon  goods 
so  sold;410  but  the  protection  of  the  commerce  clause  ceases 
when  the  importer  has  so  acted  upon  the  thing  imported  that  it 
has  been  incorporated  with  the  mass  of  property  in  the  state.411 

Co.,  158  Mo.  342,  81  Am.  St.  Eep.  216,  59  S.  W.  103;  but  see  Wiggins 
Ferry  Co.  v.  East  St.  Louis,  107  TJ.  S.  373,  2  S.  Ct.  257,  27  L.  ed.  419; 
Lightburne  v.  Taxing  Dist.,  4  Lea,  219. 

406  Board  of  Selectmen  v.  Spalding,  8  La.  Ann.  87. 

40  7  Osborne  v.  Florida,  164  U.  S.  656,  17  S.  Ct.  214,  41  L.  ed.  586; 
Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Fremont,  43  Neb.  499,  61  N.  W.  724,  26 
L.  E.  A.  706;  Postal  Tel.  Co.  v.  Eiehmond,  99  Va.  102,  86  Am.  St. 
Eep.  877,  37  S.  E.  789. 

4os  Leavell  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  116  N.  C.  211,  47  Am.  St. 
Eep.  798,  21  S.  E.  391,  27  L.  E,  A.  843. 

409  Paul  v.  Virginia,  S  Wall.  183,  19  L.  ed.  357;  Liverpool  etc.  Ins. 
Co.  v.  Massachusetts,  10  Wall.  573,  19  L.  ed.  1029;  Hooper  v.  Cali- 
fornia, 155  U.  S.  653,  15  S.  Ct.  209,  39  L.  ed.  297;  Insurance  Co.  v. 
Commonwealth,  87  Pa.  St.  183,  30  Am.  Eep.  356;  State  v.  Phipps, 
50  Kan.  69,  34  Am.  St.  Eep.  152,  31  Pac.     1097,  18  L.  E.  A.  657. 

410  Low  v!  Austin,  13  Wall.  33,  20  L.  ed.  517;  Brown  v.  Maryland, 

12  Wheat.  447,  6  L.  ed.  678;  Cook  v.  Pennsylvania,  97  U.  S.  573, 
24  L.  ed.  1015. 

411  Brown  v.  Maryland,  12  Wheat.  441,  6  L.  ed.  678;  Low  v.  Austin, 

13  Wall.  33,  20  L.  ed.  517;  Brown  v.  Houston,  114  U.  S.  634,  5  S.  Ct. 
1091,  29  L.  ed.  257;  May  v.  New  Orleans,  178  U.  S.  507,  20  S.  Ct. 
976,  44  L.  ed.  1165;  Austin  v.  Tennessee,  179  U.  S.  355,  21  S.  Ct.  132, 
45  L.  ed.  224;  State  v.  Blackwell,  65  Me.  588;  State  v.  Montgomery, 
94  Me.  192,  80  Am.  St.  Eep.  165,  47  Atl.  165;  Myers  v.  Baltimore 
County,  83  Md.  389,  55  Am.  St.  Eep.  352,  35  Atl.  145,  34  L.  E.  A. 
309;  State  v.  Parsons,  124  Mo.  436,  46  Am.  St.  Eep.  457,  27  S.  W. 
1102. 

Notes  on  Constitution — 10 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3  Commerce.  146 

An  "original  package"  is  the  box,  case,  or  bale  in  which  goods 
are  shipped,  and  the  term  does  not  include  the  smaller  parcels 
contained  therein;412  the  unit  in  which  the  carrier  receives, 
transports  and  delivers  as  an  article  of  commerce  the  identical 
package  delivered  to  it  at  the  initial  point  of  shipment  in  the 
exact  condition  in  which  it  was  shipped.413  An  uncovered  bas- 
ket in  which  small  packages  of  cigarettes  are  shipped  is  to  be 
deemed  the  "original  package."414  A  package  devised  by  a  non- 
resident manufacturer,  adapted  for  sale  at  retail  to  individual 
consumers,  and  in  which  the  article  is  sold  to  such  consumers, 
is  not  an  "original  package."415  What  constitutes  an  "original 
package"  is  ultimately  a  question  for  the  federal  courts,416  and 
the  determination  of  the  internal  revenue  officers  upon  that 
point  is  not  conclusive.417  Goods  stored  by  the  importer  in  the 
original  package  are  not  subject  to  a  state  tax  until  the  package 
is  broken  or  the  goods  sold.418 

Commerce  with  Indians. 

Under  the  commerce  clause  Congress  has  exclusive  and  unfet- 
tered power  to  regulate  commerce  with  the  Indian  tribes,  and 
its  existence  implies  the  right  to  exercise  it  whenever  there  is  a 
subject  to  act  upon;419  and  this  power  extends  to  the  regulation 

412  May  v.  New  Orleans,  178  U.  S.  510,  20  S.  Ct.  976,  44  L.  ed. 
1165;  Austin  v.  Tennessee,  179  U.  S.  354,  21  S.  Ct.  132,  45  L.  ed. 
224,  affirming  101  Tenn.  563,  70  Am.  St.  Rep.  703,  48  S.  W.  305,  50 
L.  E.  A.  478. 

413  McGregor  v.  Cone,  104  Iowa,  465,  65  Am.  St.  Rep.  522,  73 
N.  W.  1041,  39  L.  R.  A.  4S4;  Haley  v.  State,  42  Neb.  566,  47  Am.  St. 
Rep.  718,  60  N.  W.  962. 

414  Austin  v.  State,  101  Tenn.  563,  70  Am.  St.  Rep.  703,  48  S.  W. 
305,  50  L.  R.  A.  478. 

415  Commonwealth  v.  Paul,  170  Pa.  St.  2S4,  50  Am.  St.  Rep.  776, 
33  Atl.  82,  30  L.  R.  A.  396. 

416  State  v.  Goetze,  43  W.  Va.  495,  64  Am.  St.  Rep.  871,  27  S.  E. 
225. 

417  McGregor  v.  Cone,  104  Iowa,  465,  65  Am.  St.  Rep.  522,  73  N.  W. 
1041,  39  L.  R.  A.  484. 

418  State  v.  Board  of  Assessors,  46  La.  Ann.  145,  49  Am.  St.  Rep. 
318,  15  South.  10. 

419  United  States  v.  Forty-three  Gallons  of  "Whisky,  93  U.  S.  194, 
23  L.  ed.  846;  United  States  v.  Martin.  8  Saw.  478.  14  Fed.  840. 


147  Commerce.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3 

of  all  traffic  and  commercial  intercourse,  even  when  the  tribe 
is  located  wholly  within  the  limits  of  a  single  state,420  except 
under  a  license.420*  The  whole  subject  of  intercourse  with  In- 
dian tribes  is  vested  in  the  United  States,421  and  Congress  may 
prohibit  traffic  in  liquors  with  the  tribes,422  and  may  prohibit 
the  introduction  of  spirituous  liquors  to  a  place  near  a  reserva- 
tion, although  within  state  lines.423  But  the  power  to  enact 
purely  criminal  laws  for  Indian  tribes  does  not  arise  from  the 
commerce  clause;  it  arises  from  the  necessity  to  protect  the 
tribes  and  because  it  is  elsewhere  nonexistent.424  Where  reser- 
vations are  within  the  territory  of  a  state,  such  laws  apply  only 
to  offenses  committed  by  Indians  on  the  reservation.425  Where, 
however,  the  reservation  is  not  within  the  limits  of  a  state,  Con- 
gress may  provide  for  punishment  of  crimes  committed  either 
by  Indians  or  whites.426  The  commerce  contemplated  by  this 
clause  cannot  comprehend  ordinary  business  transactions  be- 
tween individuals,427  or  individual  sales  of  land;428  nor  can  the 
laws  of  Congress  invalidate  a  contract  between  an  Indian  and 
a  white  man  within  the  limits  of  a  state,429  and  in  the  absence 
of  any  federal  statute  or  treaty  to  the  contrary,  a  state  court 

420  United  States  v.  Holliday,  3  Wall.  417,  18  L.  ed.  182. 

4.20a  United  States  v.  Cisna,  1  McLean,  254,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,795. 

421  Worcester  v.  Georgia,  6  Pet.  557,  8  L.  ed.  483. 

422  United  States  v.  Shaw-Mux,  2  Saw.  365,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,268; 
United  States  v.  Tom,  1  Or.  26. 

423  United  States  v.  Forty-three  Gallons  of  Whisky,  93  U.  S.  196- 
198,  23  L.  ed.  846. 

424  United  States  v.  Kagama,  118  U.  S.  378,  383,  6  S.  Ct.  1109,  30 
L.  ed.  228;  In  re  Wilson,  140  U.  S.  577,  11  S.  Ct.  870,  35  L.  ed.  513. 

425  United  States  v.  Thomas,  151  U  S.  585,  14  S.  Ct.  426,  38  L. 
ed.  276;  United  States  v.  McBratney,  104  U.  S.  623,  26  L.  ed.  869; 
State  v.  Campbell,  53  Minn.  358,  55  N.  W.  555,  21  L.  E:  A.  169. 

426  United  States  v.  Eogers,  4  How.  572,  11  L.  ed.  1105;  Ex  parte 
Crow  Dog,  109  U.  S.  560,  3  S.  Ct.  398,  27  L.  ed.  1030;  United  States 
v.  Cha-to-kah-na-he-sha,  Hemp.  27,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,789a;  United 
States  v.  Ewing,  47  Fed.  812;  United  States  v.  Monte,  3  N.  Mex. 
125,  3  Pac.  47. 

427  Hicks  v.  Euhartonah,  21  Ark.  106. 

428  Murray  v.  Wooden,  17  Wend.  531. 

42'j  Hicks  v.  Euhartonah,  21  Ark.  106;  Taylor  v.  Drew,  21  Ark.  4S5. 


Art.  I,  §  S,  CI.  3  Commerce.  148 

may  take  jurisdiction  of  an  action  on  contract  in  favor  of  a 
white  man  against  an  Indian.430  Indians  do  not  submit  them- 
selves to  all  the  laws  of  a  state  merely  because  they  seek  its 
courts  for  the  preservation  of  rights  or  the  redress  of  wrongs.431 
An  Indian  may  sue  in  a  state  court  to  enforce  his  right  to  the 
enjoyment  of  his  property,432  may  sue  in  equity  to  restrain  a 
trespass/33  and  where  an  Indian  died  before  state  laws  were 
extended  over  the  reservation,  a  state  court  granted  letters  of 
administration  upon  his  estate  after  they  were  so  extended.434 

Status  of  Indians  and  Indian  Tribes. 

An  Indian  is  not  a  foreign  citizen  or  subject,435  but  may  be 
a  resident  alien  in  a  state.436  In  all  intercourse  with  foreign 
nations  as  to  commerce,  Indians  are  considered  as  within  the 
jurisdictional  limits  of  the  United  States.437  While  an  Indian 
tribe  is  an  alien  body,438  it  is  not  an  independent  sover- 
eignty,439 but  an  autonomous  body  subject  to  the  paramount 
authority  of  the  United  States,440  and  in  a  state  of  pupilage.441 
Indians  on  a  reservation  within  a  state  are  not  citizens  or  mem- 

430  Stokes  v.  Eodman,  5  E.  I.  405;  Staey  v.  La  Belle,  99  Wis.  520, 
67  Am.  St.  Kep.  S79,  75  N.  W.  60,  41  L.  E.  A.  419;  Jones  v.  Eisler,  3 
Kan.  134;  Murch  v.  Tomer,  21  Me.  535;  Eubideaux  v.  Vallie,  12  Kan. 

28. 

431  The  Kansas  Indians,  5  Wall.  758,  18  L.  ed.  667. 

432  Lobdell  v.  Hall,  3  Nev.  507. 

4  33  Strong  v.  Waterman,  11  Paige,  607. 

434  Brashear  v.  Williams,  10  Ala.  630;  but  see  Dole  v.  Irish,  2 
Barb.  639;   United  States  v.  Shanks,  15  Minn.  369. 

435  Karrahoo  v.  Adams,  1  Dill.  344,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7614. 
43C  Parent  v.  Walmsley,  20  Ind.  82. 

437  Worcester  v.  Georgia,  6  Pet.  515,  8  L.  ed.  483;  Cherokee  Na- 
tion v.  Georgia,  5  Pet.  1,  8  L.  ed.  25;  Mackey  v.  Coxe,  18  How.  100, 
15  L.  ed.  299;  The  Kansas  Indians,  5  Wall.  737,  18  L.  ed.  667;  United 
States  v.  Tobacco  Pact.,  1  Dill.  265,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,528. 

43S   Elk  v.  Wilkins,  112  U.  S.  102,  5  S.  Ct.  41,  28  L.  ed.  643. 

439  Cherokee  Nation  v.  Kansas  By.,  135  U.  S.  653,  10  S.  Ct.  965, 
34  L.  ed.  295. 

440  Talton  v.  Mayes,  163  XT.  S.  380,  16  S.  Ct.  986,  41  L.  ed.  196; 
Eoflf  v.  Bumey,  168  U.  S.  221,  18  S.  Ct.  60,  42  L.  ed.  442;  Stephens 
v.  Cherokee  Nation,  174  U.  S.  486,  19  S.  Ct.  722,  43  L.  ed.  1041. 

4  41   Jones  v.  Meehan,  175  U.  S.  1,  20  S.  Ct.  1,  44  L.  ed.  49. 


149  Commerce.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3 

bers  of  the  body  politic,  but  are  considered  as  independent  tribes 
governed  by  their  own  usages  and  chiefs;442  and  if  an  Indian 
leaves  his  tribe  to  take  up  his  abode  among  white  people,  he  is 
entitled  to  all  the  rights  and  privileges  belonging  to  an  emi- 
grant from  any  foreign  people.443  State  laws  can  have  no  force 
in  a  reservation  within  state  territory,  and  citizens  of  the  state 
have  no  right  to  enter  except  with  the  consent  of  the  tribe  and 
in  conformity  with  treaties  and  acts  of  Congress,444  and  the 
rights  of  a  tribe  as  against  state  laws  can  only  be  changed  by 
treaty  stipulations  or  an  abandonment  of  their  tribal  organiza- 
tion.445 The  recognition  of  Indians  as  tribes  is  a  matter  for 
the  political  department  of  the  government  and  its  decision  is 
binding  on  the  courts.446 

The  tribes  contemplated  by  the  commerce  clause  are  those 
which  are  in  a  condition  to  determine  for  themselves  with  whom 
they  will  have  commerce,447  and  when  the  Indian  lands  are 
within  the  boundaries  of  a  state,  Congress  is  limited  to  the  regu- 
lation of  commerce  with  such  tribes  as  exist  as  a  distinct  commu- 
nity.448    This  clause  gives  to  Congress  power  to  regulate  com- 

442  Holden  v.  Joy,  17  Wall.  242,  21  L.  ed.  523;  Goodell  v.  Jackson, 
20  Johns.  693,  11  Am.  Dec.  351;  Jackson  v.  Wood,  7  Johns.  290; 
Strong  v.  Waterman,  11  Paige,  607. 

443  Dred  Scott  v.  Sandford,  19  How.  393,  15  L.  ed.  691. 

444  Worcester  v.  Georgia,  6  Pet.  515,  8  L.  ed.  483;  United  States  v. 
Cisna,  1  McLean,  254,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,795;  McKay  v.  Campbell,  2 
Saw.  133,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8840;  Blair  v.  Painkiller,  2  Yerg.  407. 

445  The  Kansas  Indians,  5  Wall.  755,  757,  18  L.  ed.  667;  Mungosah 
v.  Steinbrook,  3  Dill.  419,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9924;  United  States  v.  Payne, 
4  DiU.  389,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,014;  United  States  v.  Boyd,  68  Fed.  582; 
Compo  v.  Jackson  Iron  Co.,  50  Mich.  583,  16  N.  W.  300;  Earl  v. 
Godley,  42  Minn.  362,  18  Am.  St.  Rep.  578,  44  N.  W.  255,  7  L.  B.  A. 
125;  In  re  Narragansett  Indians,  20  E.  I.  771,  40  Atl.  368. 

446  Holden  v.  Joy,  17  Wall.  242,  21  L.  ed.  523;  United  States  v. 
Holliday,  3  Wall.  419,  18  L.  ed.  182;  The  Kansas  Indians,  5  Wall. 
737,  18  L.  ed.  667;  Territory  v.  Cox,  6  Dak.  521;  Me-shing-go-me-sia 
v.  State,  36  Ind.  316. 

447  Moor  v.  Veazie,  32  Me.  343,  52  Am.  Dec.  655. 

448  United  States  v.  Bailey,  1  McLean,  234,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,495: 
United  States  v.  Cisna,  1  McLean,  254,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,795;  State 
v.  Foreman,  8  Yerg.  256>. 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3  Commerce.  150 

merce  between  different  Bribes  and  between  different  Indians,449 
and  to  regulate  commerce  between  different  tribes  as  well  without 
as  within  the  Indian  country.450  The  power  of  Congress  does  not 
necessarily  cease  upon  their  being  included  within  state  limits  ;451 
but  where  the  Indians  occupy  territory  of  very  limited  extent,  sur- 
rounded by  white  people,  necessarily  having  daily  intercourse  with 
the  Indians,  and  it  becomes  impracticable  to  enforce  the  law,  the 
federal  power  must  cease.452  An  Indian  tribe  cannot  by  treaty 
stipulate  away  any  part  of  the  sovereignty  of  a  state  guaranteed 
to  it  upon  its  admission  to  the  Union.453  "Indian  country" 
includes  all  within  the  United  States  to  which  Indian  title  has 
not  been  extinguished,  excepting  territory  not  exempted  from 
state  jurisdiction  at  the  time  of  admission;  but  even  as  to  ter- 
ritory so  exempted,  Congress  retains  its  power  under  the  com- 
merce clause.454  A  tribal  Indian,  although  off  the  reservation, 
is  a  ward  of  the  government.455 

Indian  Laws  and  Customs. 

So  long  as  Indians  adhere  to  their  tribal  customs  and  their 
affairs  are  managed  by  government  officers,  they  are  not  subject 
to  state  laws,456  and  may  regulate  their  own  civil  policy,  their 
property  contracts,  domestic  relations  and  inheritance.457     ISTot- 

449  United  States  v.  Holliday,  3  Wall.  415,  18  L.  ed.  182;  United 
States  v.  Shaw-Mux,  2  Saw.  364,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,268. 

450  United  States  v.  Holliday,  3  Wall.  415,  416.  18  L.  ed.  182; 
United  States  v.  Cisna,  1  McLean,  254,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,795;  United 
States  v.  Seveloff,  2  Saw.  317,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,252. 

451  The  Kansas  Indians,  5  Wall.  754,  757,  18  L.  ed.  667. 

452  United  States  v.  Cisna,  1  McLean,  254. 

453  United  States  v.  Forty-three  Gallons  of  Whisky,  93  U.  S.  188, 
23  L.  ed.  846. 

454  Ex  parte  Crow  Dog,  109  U.  S.  561,  3  S.  Ct.  396,  27  L.  ed.  1030. 

455  United  States  v.  Miller,  105  Fed.  944. 

456  United  States  v.  Boyd,  83  Fed.  554;  State  v.  McKenney,  18 
Nev.  203,  2  Pac.  182;  Boyer  v.  Dively,  58  Mo.  510;  Morgan  v.  Mc- 
Ghee,  5  Humph.  13;  Wall  v.  Williams,  11  Ala.  826. 

4  57  Mackey  v.  Coxe,  18  How.  103,  15  L.  ed.  299;  Gray  v.  Coffman, 
3  Dill.  401,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5714;  United  States  v.  Paine,  4  Dill.  38«, 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,014;  Boyer  v.  Dively,  58  Mo.  510;  Dole  v.  Irish,  2 
Barb.  639;  Goodell  v.  Jackson,  20  Johns.  693,  11  Am.  Dec.  351;  Mor- 
gan v.  McGhee,  5  Humph.  13;  Jones  v.  Laney,  2  Tex.  342. 


151  Commerce.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3 

withstanding  the  reservation  is  within  state  limits.458  In  the 
management  of  their  internal  concerns  tribal  Indians  are  de- 
pendent upon  no  power.459  A  marriage  between  Indians  ac- 
cording to  the  usages  of  the  tribe  will  be  recognized  every- 
where,460 and  the  right  of  dissolution,  of  which  either  party  may 
take  advantage,  will  be  deemed  a  term  of  the  contract;461  but 
a  marriage  between  Indians  in  a  state  after  the  tribe  has  re- 
moved therefrom  must  conform  to  the  state  laws,462  and  a  mar- 
riage between  a  white  man  and  an  Indian  woman  according  to 
the  tribal  customs,  if  prohibited  by  state  laws,  must  be  held  void, 
although  performed  on  a  reservation.463  The  liability  of  an  inn- 
keeper on  a  reservation  is  to  be  determined  by  tribal  laws.464 
Id  the  absence  of  proof,  it  will  be  presumed  that  in  a  savage 
tribe  there  are  no  laws  regulating  descents,  and  that  property 
belongs  to  the  first  occupant.465  A  tribe  may  adopt  a  white 
person  or  others,  and  after  adoption  such  person  is  subject  to 
all  the  burdens  and  entitled  to  all  the  immunities  of  a  native 
born.466 

The  construction  of  statutes  of  an  Indian  nation  is  solely 
within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  courts  of  that  nation;467  but 
where  an  offense  is  cognizable  under  federal  laws,  the  tribal 
courts  enn  have  no  jurisdiction.468     The  Cherokee  territory  is 

458  Wall  v.  Williams,  11  Ala,  826;  Goodell  v.  Jackson,  20  Johns. 
693,  11  Am.  Dec.  351. 

459  Worcester  v.  Georgia,  6  Pet.  515,  8  L.  ed.  483. 

460  Wall  v.  Williams,  11  Ala.  826;  Earl  v.  Godley,  42  Minn.  361, 
18  Am.  St.  Eep.  517,  44  N.  W.  255,  7  L.  E.  A.  125;  Johnson  v.  John- 
son, 30  Mo.  72;  Boyer  v.  Dively,  58  Mo.  510;  Morgan  v.  McGhee, 
5  Humph.  13. 

461  Wall  v.  Williams,  11  Ala.  826. 

462  Eoche  v.  Washington,  19  Ind.  53,  81  Am.  Dec.  376. 

463  In  re  Wilbur's  Estate,  8  Wash.  35,  40  Am.  St.  Eep.  886,  35 
Pac.  407. 

4  64  Horland  v.  Pack,  Peck  (Tenn.),  151. 

465  Brashear  v.  Williams,  10  Ala.  630. 

466  Nofire  v.  United  States,  164  U.  S.  662,  17  S.  Ot.  212,  41  L.  ed. 
588;  United  States'  v.  Eagsdale,  Hemp.  497,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,113; 
Eaymond   v.   Eayniond,   83   Fed.   723. 

46T  Talton  v.  Mayes,  163  U.  S.  3S5,  16  S.  Ct.  986,  41  L.  ed.  196; 
Nordstrom  v.  Washington,  164  U.  S.  705,  17  S.  Ct.  997,  41  L.  ed.  1183. 
468  United  States  v.  Eagsdale,  Hemp.  497,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,113. 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  3  Commerce.  153 

a  domestic  territory,  and  its  laws  and  proceedings  stand  on  the 
same  footing  as  those  of  other  territories.469 

469  Mackey  v.  Coxe,  18  How.  103,  15  L.  ed.  299;  The  Cherokee  To- 
bacco, 11  Wall.  619,  20  L.  ed.  227 ;  affirming  1  Dill.  265,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
16,528. 


153  Naturalization.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  4 

4.  To  establish  an  uniform  rule  of  naturalization, 
and  uniform  laws  on  the  subject  of  bankruptcies 
throughout  the  United  States. 

Naturalization — Nature  of  Proceeding. 

Naturalization  is  the  act  of  adopting  a  foreigner  and  clothing 
him  with  the  privileges  of  a  native  citizen;1  it  is  a  judicial 
proceeding  submitted  to  courts  of  record,  and  their  judgments 
therein  are  conclusive.2  Submission  to  a  court  of  record  is  es- 
sential,3 and  a  court  of  record  without  a  clerk  has  no  jurisdic- 
tion to  proceed.4  The  oath  prescribed  by  the  naturalization  act, 
when  taken,  confers  citizenship,  and  an  order  of  court  admit- 
ting the  applicant  is  necessary.5 

Persons  Entitled  to  Naturalization. 


The  power  granted  in  this  clause  is  confined  to  the  removal 
of  disabilities  of  foreign  birth,6  and  does  not  apply  to  a  free 
white  person  born  in  this  country  of  foreign  parents,"  nor  to  a 
freeman  of  color  born  in  the  United  States.8  When  the  consti- 
tution was  adopted,  African  negroes,  whether  emancipated  or 
not,  were  deemed  to  have  no  rights  or  privileges  except  what  the 

1  Osborne  v.  Bank  of  United  States,  9  Wheat.  827,  6  L.  ed.  204; 
Boyd  v.  Nebraska,  143  U.  S.  162,  12  S.  Ct.  375,  36  L.  ed.  103. 

2  Spratt  v.  Spratt,  4  Pet.  408,  7  L.  ed.  897;  The  Acorn,  2  Abb.  444, 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  21;  Scott  v.  Strobaeh,  49  Ala.  488;  Ex  parte  Knowles, 
5  Cal.  301;  People  v.  MeGowan,  77  111.  647,  20  Am.  Rep.  255;  Andres 
v.  Arnold,  77  Mich.  88,  43  N.  W.  858,  6  L.  E.  A.  238;  State  v.  Mac- 
donald,  24  Minn.  59;  McCarthy  v.  Marsh,  5  N.  Y.  284;  Common- 
wealth v.  Towles,  5  Leigh,  746;  State  v.  Hoeflinger,  35  Wis.  400. 

3  United  States  v.  Makins,  26  Fed.  Cas.  1114;  Green  v.  Salas,  31 
Fed.  107. 

4  Ex  parte  Cregg,  2  Curt.  100,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3380;  Dean,  Peti- 
tioner, 83  Me.  498,  22  Atl.  387,  13  L.  E.  A.  229;  State  v.  Whittenrore, 
50  N.  H.  251,  9  Am.  Eep.  203. 

5  Campbell  v.  Gordon,  6  Cr.  182,  3  L.  ed.  190. 

6  Dred  Scott  v.  Sandford,  19  How.  417,  420,  57S,  15  L.  ed.  691; 
United  States  v.  Ehodes,  1  Abb.  45,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,151;  Lynch  v. 
Clarke,  1   Sand.  Ch.  583. 

1  Citizenship,  9  Opin.  Atty.  Gen.  374. 

s  Dred  Scott  v.  Sandford,  19  How.  420,  15  L.  ed.  691;  Smith  V. 
Moody,  26  lnd.  299. 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  4  Naturalization.  154 

dominant  race  chose  to  grant  them;  under  the  constitution, 
as  originally  adopted,  Congress  could  not  naturalize  native  or 
foreign  negroes,9  but  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  gave  negroes 
all  the  privileges  of  citizenship.10  Chinese  persons  not  born  in 
the  United  States  have  never  been  recognized  as  citizens  nor 
authorized  to  become  naturalized.11  Indians  may  be  naturalized 
by  authority  of  Congress,  like  the  subjects  of  any  foreign  gov- 
ernment;12 in  fact,  naturalization  of  a  member  of  an  existing 
tribe  is  a  prerequisite  to  United  States  citizenship.13  While  Con- 
gress may  prescribe  general  laws  for  naturalization,  it  has  also 
power  to  naturalize  a  class  collectively  by  treaty  or  statute.14 
The  treaty  of  Washington  conferred  the  elective  franchise  upon 
British  subjects  resident  in  the  disputed  territory  at  the  time  of 
its  adoption.15 

Power  to  Naturalize. 


The  constitution  vests  the  power  of  naturalization  exclusively 
in  Congress.16     While  a  state  may  confer  upon  individuals  the 

9  Dred  Scott  v.  Sandford,  19  How.  412-420,  15  L.  ed.  691. 
io  Strauder  v.  West  Virginia,  100  U.  S.  307,  25  L.  ed.  664. 
it  Fong  Yue  Ting  v.  United  States,  149  U.  S.  716,  13  S.  Ct.  1016, 
37   L.   ed.   905. 

12  Dred  Scott  v.  Sandford,  19  How.  404,  15  L.  ed.  691. 

13  Elk  v.  Wilkins,  112  U.  S.  101,  5  S.  Ct.  45,  2S  L.  ed.  643;  Paul  v. 
Ckilsoquie,  70  Fed.   402. 

14  Boyd  v.  Nebraska,  143  U.  S.  162,  12  S.  Ct.  375,  36  L.  ed.  103; 
In  re  Rodriguez,  81  Fed.  350,  351;  People  v.  Washington,  36  Cal.  658. 

15  Opinion  Atty.  Gen.,  68  Me.  589. 

16  Chirac  v.  Chirac,  2  Wheat.  269,  4  L.  ed.  234;  United  States  v. 
Villato,  2  Dall.  372,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,622;  Houston  v.  Moore,  5  Wheat. 

48,  5  L.  ed.  19;  Ogden  v.  Saunders,  12  Wheat.  277,  6  L.  ed.  606;  Pas- 
senger Cases,  7  How.  556,  12  L.  ed.  702;  Dred  Scott  v.  Sandford,  19 
How.  417,  15  L.  ed.  691;  Elk  v.  Wilkins,  112  U.  S.  109,  58  S.  Ct. 

49,  28  L.  ed.  613;  Boyd  v.  Nebraska,  143  U.  S.  158-160,  12  S.  Ct.  375, 
36  L.  ed.  103;  United  States  v.  Wong  Kim  Ark,  169  U.  S.  701,  18  S. 
Ct.  477,  42  L.  ed.  890;  United  States  v.  Ehodes,  1  Abb.  45,  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  16,151;  Matthew  v.  Rae,  3  Cr.  C.  C.  699,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9281; 
Golden  v.  Prince,  3  Wash.  C.  C.  313,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5509;  Comitis  v. 
Parkerson,  56  Fed.  558,  22  L.  K.  A.  148;  Ex  parte  Knowles,  5  Cal. 
300;  North  Carolina  v.  Manuel,  2  Dev.  &  B.  25;  North  Carolina  v. 
Newsom,  J>  [red.  253;  Lynch  v.  Clarke,  1  Sand.  Ch.  5S3;  Stephens, 
Petitioner,  4  Gray,  561;  Commonwealth  v.  Ives,  18  Pick.  193. 


155  Naturalization.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  4 

rights  of  citizens  within  its  own  borders,  it  cannot  invest  them 
with  the  character  or  rights  of  United  States  citizens;17  the 
rights  so  conferred  are  restricted  to  the  state  which  gave  them;18 
but  notwithstanding  the  rights  of  citizenship  under  the  state 
and  federal  governments  differ,19  a  citizen  of  the  United  States 
is  a  citizen  of  the  state  where  he  resides.20  The  object  of  invest- 
ing Congress  with  this  power  was  to  guard  against  a  too  narrow 
mode  of  conferring  rights  of  citizenship,21  and  it  was  sought  to 
provide  a  rule  for  the  action  of  the  states  and  not  for  that  of 
the  federal  government.22  A  state  cannot  superadd  any  con- 
ditions to  the  acquisition  of  the  rights  of  citizenship;23  but 
while  Congress  may  deprive  a  person  of  the  opportunity  to  enjoy 
a  right  belonging  to  him  as  a  citizen  of  a  state,  it  cannot  de- 
prive him  of  the  right  itself.24 

Congress  may  determine  the  class  of  courts  which  may  be 
invested  with  jurisdiction  in  naturalization  proceedings,25  and 
no  state  can  confer  jurisdiction  on  any  tribunal  which  does  not 
come  within  the  terms  of  the  act  of  Congress.26  But  a  state  may 
prohibit  its  courts    from   entertaining   naturalization    proceed- 

17  Dred  Scott  v.  Sandford,  19  How.  405-422,  15  L.  ed.  691;  Boyd 
v.  Nebraska,  143  U.  S.  158-160,  12  S.  Ct.  375,  36  L.  ed.  103;  Minne- 
apolis v.  Eeum,  56  Fed.  581;  Lanz  v.  Randall,  4  Dill.  425,  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  S0S0;  McCarthy  v.  Froelke,  63  Ind.  511;  Opinion  of  Justices,  41 
N.  H.  556;  In  re  Wehlitz,  16  Wis.  447,  84  Am.  Doe.  702;  Ex  parte 
Kinney,  3  Hughes,  15,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7825. 

is  Dred  Scott  v.  Sandford,  19  How.  405-422,  15  L.  ed.  691;  In  re 
Wehlitz,  16  Wis.  447,  84  Am.  Dec.  702. 

19  United  States  v.  Cruikshank,  92  U.  S.  549,  23  L.  ed.  588;  Ex 
parte  Siebold,  100  U.  S.  390,  25  L.  ed.  717;  Marks  v.  Marks,  75  Fed. 
324;  Keller  v.  Corpus  Christi,  50  Tex.  629,  32  Am.  Eep.  616. 

20  Gassies  v.  Ballou,  6  Pet.  762,  8  L.  ed.  573;  Boyd  v.  Thayer, 
143  U.  S.  161,  12  S.  Ct.  3S1,  36  L.  ed.  103;  Smith  v.  Moody,  26  Ind. 
301. 

21  Collet  v.  Collet,  2  Dall.  294,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3001. 

22  Ex  parte  Knowles,  5  Cal.  300. 

23  Commonwealth  v.  Towles,  5  Leigh,  743;  Page  v.  Allen,  58  Pa. 
St.  33S,  98  Am.  Dec.  272. 

24  Huber  v.  Keily,  53  Pa.  St.  112. 

25  Ex  parte  Smith,  22  Fed.  Cas.  380;  Ex  parte  Knowles,  5  Cal.  300; 
Ex  parte  Beavins,  33  N.  H.  89. 

26  New  Hampshire  v.  Whittemore,  50  N.  H.  245. 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  4  Naturalization.  156 

ings.27  If  state  courts  possess  the  necessary  jurisdiction  under 
state  laws  Congress  may  empower  them  to  naturalize  aliens  and 
give  validity  to  their  acts  in  so  doing.28 

Evidence  of  Naturalization. 


Inasmuch  as  naturalization  proceedings  must  be  had  before 
a  court  of  record,  the  record  of  the  judgment  admitting  an  alien 
to  citizenship  is  evidence  of  his  naturalization.29  The  record 
need  not  show  affirmatively  the  existence  of  all  the  legal  requi- 
sites;30 it  will  be  presumed  conclusively  that  all  the  prerequi- 
sites have  been  complied  with,31  and  the  certificate  cannot  be 
set  aside  on  the  ground  that  the  facts  were  falsely  represented 
to  the  court.32  While  the  record  is  the  best  proof  of  naturaliza- 
tion, yet  where  the  record  cannot  be  produced,  the  fact  may  be 
proved  by  other  evidence.33 

Operation  and  Effect. 


Naturalization  has  a  retroactive  effect  and  removes  all  liability 
to  forfeiture  of  land  held  while  an  alien,34  and  where  an  alien 
takes  by  grant  or  by  location  on  public  lands,  his  subsequent 
naturalization  relates  back  and  obviates  every  consequence  of  his 
alien  disability.35    The  naturalization  of  a  father  gives  citizen- 

27  Ex  parte  Stephens,  4  Gray,  559;  Ex  parte  Beavins,  33  N.  H.  89. 

28  Ex  parte  Knowles,  5  Cal.  300;  Eump  v.  Commonwealth,  3  Pa. 
St.  475;  Morgan  v.  Dudley,  18  B.  Mon.  693,  68  Am.  Dec.  735. 

29  Stork  v.  Chesapeake  Ins.  Co.,  7  Cr.  423,  3  L.  ed.  391;  Spratt  v. 
Spratt,  4  Pet.  408,  7  L.  ed.  897;  Mutual  Benefit  Ins.  Co.  v.  Tisdale, 
91  U.  S.  238,  23  L.  ed.  314;  The  Acorn,  2  Abb.  444,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  29; 
In  re  Clark,  18  Barb.  444;  McCarthy  v.  Marsh,  5  N.  Y.  263;  Eitchie 
v.  Putnam,  13  Wend.  524. 

30  Hailey  v.  State,  40  Ala.  697. 

31  Spratt  v.  Spratt,  4  Pet.  408,  7  L.  ed.  897. 

32  United  States  v.  Gleason,  78  Fed.  397;  Pintsch  C.  Co.  v.  Bergin. 
84  Fed.  141. 

33  Boyd  v.  Nebraska,  143  U.  S.  180,  12  S.  Ct.  375,  36  L.  ed.  103; 
Blair  v.  Silver  Peak  Min.  Co.,  93  Fed.  335. 

34  Osterman  v.  Baldwin,  6  Wall.  122,  18  L.  ed.  730;  Manuel  v. 
Wulff,  152  U.  S.  511,  14  S.  Ct.  653,  38  L.  ed.  562;  Williams  v.  Bennett, 
1  Tex.  Civ.  App.  506,  20  S.  W.  858. 

35  Governeur's  Heirs  v.  Robertson,  11  Wheat.  350,  6  L.  ed.  488; 
Bogan  v.  Edinburgh  Land  Co.,  63  Fed.  197;  Lone  Jack  Min.  Co.  v. 


157  Naturalization.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  4 

ship  to  minor  children,36  hut  the  status  acquired  by  minors  at  the 
time  their  father  filed  his  declaration  of  intention  may  be  repudi- 
ated if  they  attain  their  majority  before  he  is  naturalized.37  A 
minor  child  who  was  in  the  country  at  the  time  of  the  passage  of 
the  act  of  April  14,  1802,  acquired  citizenship,  although  he  was 
not  in  the  country  at  the  time  of  naturalization.38 

Megginson,  82  Fed.  94;  Hanriek  v.  Hanrick,  54  Tex.  114;  Baker  v. 
Westcott,  73  Tex.  134,  11  S.  W.  159;  Culverhouse  v.  Beach,  1  Johns. 
Cas.  399. 

3<;  Boyd  v.  Nebraska,  143  U.  S.  177,  12  S.  Ct.  375,  36  L.  ed.  103. 

37  Boyd  v.  Nebraska,  143  U.  S.  177,  12  S.  Ct.  375,  36  L.  ed-  103; 
State  v.  Strenkens,  60  Minn.  327,  62  N.  W.  260. 

38  Campbell  v.  Gordon,  6  Cr.  182,  3  L.  ed.  190. 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  4  Bankruptcy  Laws.  158 

— Laws  on  the  subject  of  bankruptcies. 

Bankruptcy — Meaning  of  Term. 

In  American  law  the  distinction  between  bankruptcy  and  in- 
solvency seems  to  have  been  lost,1  and  no  practical  distinction 
has  ever  been  attempted.2  "Insolvency,"  as  applied  to  voluntary 
applications  for  a  decree,  has  been  held  to  mean  an  inability  to 
meet  engagements,  but  in  its  relation  to  compulsory  proceedings 
by  creditors,  to  mean  the  bankruptcy  of  the  debtor  as  known  to 
the  court,  as  a  ground  for  proceedings,3  and  "bankruptcy"  has 
been  defined  as  the  stoppage  and  breaking  up  of  business  from 
inability  to  carry  it  on.4  The  word  bears  a  meaning  coextensive 
with  insolvency  and  is  equivalent  to  that  word  in  the  constitu- 
tion.5 The  various  bankrupt  acts  of  Congress  seem  to  regard 
insolvency  as  a  condition  precedent  to  a  judicial  declaration  that 
a  debtor  is  bankrupt — a  condition  arising  from  certain  circum- 
stances, or  from  certain  acts  upon  the  part  of  the  debtor;  e.  g., 
inability  to  pay  debts  in  money  as  they  become  due  in  the  ordi- 
nary course  of  business,6  or  fraudulent  transfers  or  assignments 
made  with  intent  to  defeat  creditors'  claims.7  The  word  is  used 
in  the  constitution  in  the  plural  as  part  of  an  expression  "sub- 

1  Sturges  v.  Crowninshield,  4  Wheat.  196-198,  4  L.  ed.  529. 

2  In  re  Eeiman,  7  Ben.  463,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,673. 

3  Ex  parte  Hull,  12  Fed.  Cas.  856;  West  v.  Creditors,  4  Eob.  (La.) 
92. 

4  Sturge3  v.  Crowninshield,  4  Wheat.  195,  4  L.  ed.  529;  Ex  parte 
Breneman,  Crabbe,  465,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1830;  Arnold  v.  Maynard,  2 
Story,  354,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  561. 

5  Morse  v.  Hovey,  1  Barb.  Ch.  404. 

6  Toof  v.  Martin,  13  Wall.  47,  20  L.  ed.  481;  Wager  v.  Hall,  16 
Wall.  599,  21  L.  ed.  504;  Dutcher  v.  Wright,  94  U.  S.  557,  2-4  L.  ed. 
130;  Anschutz  v.  Hoerr,  1  Fed.  593;  Roberts  v.  Hill,  23  Blatchf.  315, 
24  Fed.  573;  Case  v.  Citizens'  Bank,  2  Woods,  26,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2489; 
In  re  S&hoenberger,  21  Fed.  Cas.  1335;  Swan  v.  Robinson,  5  Fed.  294. 

7  United  States  v.  Hooe,  3  Cr.  91,  2  L.  ed.  370;  United  States  v. 
The  Marshal  etc.,  2  Brock.  491,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,727;  United  States 
v.  Langton,  5  Mason,  284,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,560;  Wilson  v.  City  Bank, 
17  Wall.  487,  21  L.  ed.  723;  National  Bank  v.  Colby,  21  Wall.  613, 
22  L.  ed.  687. 


159  Bankruptcy  Laws.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  4 

ject  of  bankruptcies/*'  over  which  subject  Congress  has  general 
jurisdiction.8 

Uniformity. 


To  come  within  the  constitutional  provision,  a  bankrupt  law 
must  be  uniform  throughout  the  United  States;9  but  the  uni- 
formity contemplated  is  geographical  and  not  personal/0  and 
refers  to  the  general  policy  and  operation  of  the  law,  although 
it  may,  in  some  minor  respects,  operate  differently  in  different 
states.11  So  a  law  is  uniform  when  the  trustee  takes  in  each 
state  whatever  would  have  been  available  to  execution  creditors,12 
and  the  allowance  of  exemptions  accorded  in  each  state  is  not 
incompatible  with  the  constitutional  requirement,  although  the 
amount  of  such  exemptions  may  differ  in  the  several  states.13 

Power  of  Congress. 


The  power  of  Congress  under  this  clause  is  plenary  over 
the  subject  of  bankruptcy,  and  it  is  not  limited  to  acts 
similar  in  scope  to  those  in  force    in    England    at    the   time 

8  In  re  Klein,  1  How.  277,  note,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7865;  In  re  Silver- 
man, 1  Saw.  410,  2  Abb.  U.  S.  243,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,855. 

9  Hanover  Nat.  Bank  v.  Moyses.  186  U.  S.  184,  22  S.  Ct.  857,  46  L. 
ed.  1113;  Day  v.  Bardwell,  3  Bank.  Reg.  455;  In  re  Dillard,  9  Bank. 
Beg.  8,  2  Hughes,  190,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3912;  In  re  Deckert,  10  Bank. 
Reg.  1,  2  Hughes,  183,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3728;  In  re  Duerson,  13  Bank. 
Reg.  183,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4117;  In  re  Shipman,  14  Bank.  Reg.  570,  2 
Hughes,  227,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,791;  Bush  v.  Lester,  55  Ga.  579;  Kit- 
tredge  v.  Warren,  11  N.  H.  509. 

10  Hanover  Nat.  Bank  v.  Moyses,  186  U.  S.  188,  22  S.  Ct.  857,  46 
L.  ed.  1113. 

11  In  re  Jordan,  8  Bank.  Reg.  180,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7514;  Darling  v. 
Berry,  13  Fed.  659. 

12  Hanover  Nat.  Bank  v.  Moyses,  1S6  U.  S.  190,  22  S.  Ct.  857,  46 
L.  ed.  1113;  In  re  Ruth,  1  Bank.  Reg.  Sup.  154,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,172; 
In  re  Appold,  1  Bank.  Reg.  178,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  499;  In  re  Beckerford, 
4  Bank.  Reg.  59,  1  Dill.  45,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1209;  In  re  Jordan,  8  Bank. 
Reg.  180,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7514;  In  re  Deckert,  10  Bank.  Beg.  1,  2 
Hughes,  183,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3728. 

12  Hanover  Nat.  Bank  v.  Moyses,  186  H.  S.  189,  22  S.  Ct.  857,  46 
L.  ed.  1113;  In  re  Appold,  1  Bank.  Reg.  621,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  499. 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  4  Bankruptcy  Laws.  160 

the  constitution  was  adopted;14  it  is  general,  unlimited  and 
unrestricted,15  save  in  the  requirement  that  the  law  shall  be 
uniform.16  and  applies  to  all  classes  of  persons,17  and  to  volun- 
tary and  involuntary  bankruptcy.18  All  uniform  legislation 
tending  to  promote  the  distribution  of  an  insolvent's  estate 
among  his  creditors,  and  his  discharge  from  their  demands,  is 
within  the  power  of  Congress;19  but  a  bankrupt  law  need  not 
provide  for  the  discharge  of  the  debtor.20  The  power  to  enact 
implies  power  to  make  the  law  efficient,21  and  includes  an 
act  punishing  the  fraudulent  disposition  of  goods  obtained  on 
credit;22  or  attempts  to  evade  the  bankrupt  law  or  to  fraudu- 
lently secure  the  benefit  of  it;23  providing  for  compositions  with 
creditors,23*  or  avoiding  assignments  under  state  laws.24     Con- 

14  In  re  Silverman,  2  Abb.  U.  S.  243,  1  Saw.  410,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
12,855. 

15  In  re  Silverman,  2  Abb.  U.  S.  243,  1  Saw.  410,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
12,855;  In  re  Reiman,  7  Ben.  455,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,673;  Thompson  v. 
Alger,  12  Met.  428. 

16  Kunzler  v.  Kohaus,  5  Hill,  317;  In  re  Klein,  1  How.  277,  note, 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  7865. 

it  In  re  Klein,  1  How.  277,  note,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7865;  In  re  Cali- 
fornia Pae.  R,  R.,  3  Saw.  240,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2315;  In  re  Silverman,  2 
Abb.  U.  S.  243,  1  Saw.  410,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,855;  Morse  v.  Hovey,  1 
Sand.  Ch.  187;  Kunzler  v.  Kohaus,  5  Hill.  317. 

1R  lu  re  Klein,  1  How.  277,  note,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7865;  State  Bank 
v.  Wilborn,  6  Ark.  35;  Lalor  v.  Wattles,  3  Gilm.  225;  Kunzler  v. 
Kohaus,  5  Hill,  317;  Land  v.  Pierce,  25  Me.  233;  Thompson  v.  Alger, 
12  Met.  425;  Dresser  v.  Brooks,  3  Barb.  429;  Hastings  v.  Fowler,  2 
Ind.  216;   Cutler  v.  Folsom,  17  N.  H.   139;   McCormiek  v.  Pickering, 

4  N.  Y.  276;  Keen  v.  Mould,  18  Ohio,  12;  Kowan  v.  Holcomb,  16  Ohio, 
463. 

19  In  re  Silverman,  2  Abb.  U.  S.  243,  1  Saw.  410,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
12,855;  In  re  Klein,  1  How.  277,  note,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7865;  In  re  Cali- 
fornia etc.  R.  R.,  3  Saw.  242,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2315;  Kunzler  v.  Kohaus, 

5  Hill.  317;  Sackett  v.  Andross,  5  Hill,  327;  McCormiek  v.  Pickering, 
4  N.  Y.  3S2. 

20  In  re  California  etc.  R.  R.,  3  Saw.  242,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2315; 
Van  Nostrand  v.  Barr,  30  Md.  128. 

21  Russell  v.  Cheatham,  16  Miss.  703. 

22  United  States  v.  Pusey,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,098. 

23  United  States  v.  Fox,  95  U.  S.  672,  24  L.  ed.  538. 
23a  In  re  Reiman,  7  Ben.  455,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,673. 

24  In  re  Breneman,  Crabbe,  456,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1830. 


161  Bankruptcy  Laws.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  4 

gress  is  not  forbidden  to  pass  laws  impairing  the  obligation  of 
contracts,  and  a  bankrupt  act  may  provide  for  the  discharge  of 
a  bankrupt  from  debts  contracted  before  its  passage,25  and  may 
destroy  liens  upon  the  bankrupt's  property,  whether  created  by 
contract,  by  statute,  or  by  judgment;26  but  Congress  cannot  em- 
power the  states  to  give  a  bankrupt  exemption  from  debts  cre- 
ated before  the  passage  of  the  state  exemption  laws.27  Congress 
may,  however,  declare  what  and  how  much  of  the  debtor's  prop- 
erty shall  be  exempt,28  and  state  exemption  laws  in  conflict  must 
yield.29  This  clause  authorizes  the  passage  of  laws  giving  juris- 
diction to  district  and  circuit  courts  in  bankruptcy  matters  and 
prescribing  modes  of  procedure,30  but  state  courts  cannot  be  in- 
vested with  jurisdiction  in  bankruptcy.31 

Powers  of  the  States. 

The  power  given  to  Congress  is  not  exclusive,  and  in  the  ab- 
sence of  congressional  action  the  states  may  enact  insolvent 
laws.32     It  is  the  actual  exercise  of  the  power  by  Congress  to 

25  In  re  Klein,  1  How.  277.  note,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7865;  In  re  Smith, 
22  Fed.  Cas.  401;  In  re  Smith,  2  Woods,  460,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,996; 
In  re  Wyllie,  2  Hughes,  453,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,112;  State  Bank  v. 
Wilborn,  6  Ark.  35;  Land  v.  Pierce,  25  Me.  233;  Cutler  v.  Folsom,  17 
N.  H.  139;  Kunzler  v.  Kohaus,  5  Hill,  317;  Morse  v.  Hovey,  1  Barb. 
Ch.  404. 

26  In  re  Jordan,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7514;  Bank  of  Columbia  v.  Over- 
street,  10  Bush    (Ky.),  48. 

27  Gunn  v.  Barry,  8  Bank.  Eeg.  1;  In  re  Dillard,  9  Bank.  Keg.  16,  2 
Hughes,  190,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3912;  In  re  Everett,  9  Bank.  Beg.  93, 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  4579. 

2S  In  re  Keiman,  7  Ben.  455,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,673;  Salentine  v. 
Fink,  8  Biss.  503,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,250. 

29  In  re  Brown,  3  Bank.  Beg.  61,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1980;  Common- 
wealth v.  Kimball,  24  Pick.  359,  35  Am.  Dee.  326. 

30  Mitchell  v.  Great  Works  etc.  Co.,  2  Story,  648,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
9662;  Sherman  v.  Bingham,  1  Low,  575,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,733;  Good- 
all  v.  Tuttle,  3  Biss.  219,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5533. 

31  McLean  v.  Lafayette  Bank,  3  McLean,  415,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  88S6; 
Mitchell  v.  Great  Works  etc.  Co.,  2  Story,  648,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9662. 

32  Sturges  V.  Crowninshield,  4  Wheat.  196,  4  L.  ed.  529;  Ogden  v. 
Saunders,  12  Wheat.  264,  275,  276,  307,  314,  360,  6  L.  ed.  606;  Bald- 
win v.  Hale,  1  Wall.  228,  17  L.  ed.  531;  Cook  v.  Moffatt,  5  How.  316, 

Notes  on  Constitution — 11 


ArE.  I,  §  8,  CI.  4  Bankruptcy  Laws.  162 

pass  bankrupt  laws,  and  not  the  mere  grant  to  Congress,  that 
precludes  its  exercise  on  the  part  of  the  states.33  This  right  of 
the  states  is  not  extinguished,  but  merely  suspended,  by  the  en- 
actment of  a  national  bankrupt  law.34 

State  laws  are  not  abrogated  by  the  passage  of  a  national  act ; 
they  continue  in  force  up  to  the  time  when  the  national  act  goes 
into  effect,  and  discharges  granted  under  them  are  valid,35  and 
where  a  state  court  has  acquired  jurisdiction  in  insolvency  it 
may  proceed  to  judgment.36  This  jurisdiction  of  the  state  court 
attaches  as  soon  as  it  makes  an  order  staying  creditors  from  in- 
terference with  the  property  of  the  debtor.37  As  to  future  cases 
under  state  laws,  however,  a  national  act  suspends  all  jurisdic- 

12  L.  ed.  159;  Bank  of  Tennessee  v.  Horn,  17  How.  161,  15  L.  ed.  70; 
In  re  Eeiman,  7  Ben.  466,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,673;  Mather  v.  Nesbit,  4 
McCrary,  506,  13  Fed.  873;  Carling  v.  Seymour  Lumber  Co.,  113 
Fed.  483;  State  v.  Ourran,  12  Ark.  352;  Khodes  v.  Borden,  67  Cal. 
8,  6  Pac.  850;  Hempstead  v.  Eeed,  6  Conn.  490;  Orr  v.  Lisso,  33  La. 
Ann.  477;  Feleh  v.  Bugbee,  48  Me.  11,  77  Am.  Dec.  204;  Gorely  v. 
Butler,  147  Mass.  12,  16  N.  E.  737;  Mather  v.  Bush,  16  Johns.  233,  8 
Am.  Dec.  313;  In  re  Eeynolds,  8  E.  I.  489,  5  Am.  Eep.  617. 

33  Sturges  v.  Crowninshield,  4  Wheat.  196,  4  L.  ed.  520;  Ogden  v. 
Saunders,  12  Wheat.  275,  276,  6  L.  ed.  606;  New  Lamp  etc.  Co.  v. 
Ansonia  etc.  Co.,  91  U.  S.  661,  23  L.  ed.  336;  Adams  v.  Storey,  1 
Paine,  79;  Blanchard  v.  Eussell,  13  Mass.  1,  7  Am.  Dec.  106;  Betta 
v.  Bagley,  29  Mass.  572;  Pugh  v.  Bussel,  2  Blackf.  394;  Alexander 
v.  Gibson,  1  Nott  &  McC.    4S0. 

34  Sturges  v.  Crowninshield,  4  Wheat.  196,  4  L.  ed.  529;  Ogilen  v. 
Saunders,  12  Wheat.  296,  6  L.  ed.  606;  In  re  Bruss-Eitter  Co.,  90 
Fed.  652;  Martin  v.  Berry,  37  Cal.  208;  Van  Nostrand  v.  Barr,  30 
Md.  128;  Boedefeld  v.  Eeed,  55  Cal.  299. 

35  Martin  v.  Berry,  37  Cal.  209;  Day  v.  Bardwell,  97  Mass.  250; 
Chamberlain  v.  Perkins,  51  N.  H.  340;  Augsbury  v.  Grossman,  10  Hun, 
S89;  Eeed  v.  Taylor,  32  Iowa,  209,  7  Am.  Eep.  180;  In  re  Zeigeniuss, 
2  Ired.  463. 

36  Ex  parte  Christy,  3  How.  318,  11  L.  ed.  603;  In  re  Davis,  1 
Saw.  262;  Martin  v.  Berry,  37  Cal.  209;  Meekins  v.  Creditors,  10 
La.  Ann.  497;  Baum  v.  Stern,  1  S.  C.  419;  Augustine  v.  McFarland, 
2  Fed.  Cas.  214;  Doremus  v.  Walker,  8  Ala.  200,  42  Am.  Dec.  638; 
Eeed  v.  Taylor,  32  Iowa,  209,  7  Am.  Eep.  180;  Lavinder  v.  Gosnell, 
43  Md.  163;  Larrabee  v.  Talbott,  5  Gill,  426,  46  Am.  Dec.  637;  Longis 
v.  Creditors,  20  La.  Ann.  15;  Judd  v.  Ives,  4  Met.  401;  Minot  v. 
Thacher,  48  Mass.  348,  41  Am.  Dec.  444. 

37  Martin  v.  Berry,  37  Cal.  208;  Meekins  v.  Creditors,  19  La.  Ann. 
511. 


163  Bankkuptcy  Laws.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  4 

tion  upon  becoming  operative,38  and  in  such  cases  the  courts 
will  grant  motions  to  dismiss  proceedings  in  state  courts,39  or 
will  enjoin  assignees  under  state  laws  from  interfering  with 
debtor's  property.40  State  laws  relating  to  insolvent  corpora- 
tions are  superseded  by  a  national  act,  jurisdiction  to  decree  for- 
feiture of  charters  only  remaining,41  and  where  a  corporation 
has  been  dissolved  under  a  state  law,  it  is  to  be  deemed  to  be  still 
in  existence  for  the  purpose  of  proceedings  under  the  national 
act.42  A  provision  in  a  state  law  prohibiting  transfers  by  in- 
solvent corporations  with  intent  to  give  preferences  is  superseded 
by  a  national  act,43  as  also  is  a  law  permitting  attachments  in 
cases  which  would  authorize  proceedings  in  bankruptcy.44  An 
assignment  under  a  state  law  which  has  been  suspended  by  a 
national  act  is  good  as  between  the  parties  thereto,  although  it 
would  not  be  as  against  creditors  objecting.45 

State  laws  being  merely  suspended  by  the  enactment  of  a  na- 
tional act,  it  follows  that  upon  the  repeal  of  the  national  act 
they  are  ipso  facto  revived,  and  no  re-enactment  is  necessary,40 
and  this  principle  has  been  extended  so  far  as  to  holding  that  a 

38  New  Lamp  etc.  Co.  v.  Ansonia  etc.  Co.,  91  TJ.  S.  661,  23  L.  ed. 
336;  Corner  v.  Miller,  1  Bank.  Beg.  403;  Commonwealth  v.  O'Hara, 
1  Bank.  Eeg.  19;  Perry  v.  Langley,  2  Bank.  Eeg.  180,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
8067;  Van  No-strand  v.  Barr,  30  Md.  128;  Martin  v.  Berry,  37  Cal. 
208;  Cassard  v.  Kroner,  4  Bank.  Eeg.  569;  In  re  Eeynolds,  8  E.  T. 
485,  5  Am.  Eep.  615;  Eowe  v.  Page,  54  N.  H.  190;  In  re  Eames,  2 
Story,  322,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4237. 

39  In  re  Eeynolds,  8  E.  I.  490,  5  Am.  Eep.  618. 

40  Griswold  v.  Pratt,  9  Met.  17;  Markson  v.  Haney,  1  Dill.  503, 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  9098;  Ex  parte  Eames,  2  Story,  325,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4237; 
Hudson  v.  Schwab,  12  Fed.  Cas.  815;  In  re  Pittelkow,  92  Fed.  903. 

41  Thorndyke  v.  Bank,  1  Woods,  8  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,992;  In  re  Mer- 
chants' Ins.  Co.,  3  Biss.  162,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9441;  In  re  Independent 
Ins.  Co.,  1  Holmes,  103,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7017;  Piatt  v.  Archer,  9  Blatchf. 
559,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,213. 

42  In  re  Independent  Ins.  Co.,  1  Holmes,  103,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7017; 
Thorndyke  v.  Bank,  1  Woods,  8,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,992. 

43  French  v.  O'Brien,  52  How.  Pr.  394. 

44  Tobin  v.  Trump,  3  Brewst.  288. 

45  Boese  v.  King,  108  U.  S.  386,  2  S.  Ct.  765,  27  L.  ed.  760;  Castel- 
fcerg  v.  Wheeler,  68  Md.  281,  12  Atl.  8. 

46  Butler  v.  Gorely,  146  U.  S.  313,  13  S.  Ct.  88,  36  L.  ed.  9S1. 


Ait.  I,  §  8,  CI.  1  Bankruptcy  Laws.  161 

discharge  under  a  state  law  so  revived  extended  to  debts  in- 
curred during  the  suspension  of  the  statute.47  A  state  law 
passed  while  the  national  act  is  in  force  is  not  invalid;  its  op- 
eration is  merely  suspended,  and  upon  the  repeal  of  the  national 
act  it  becomes  effective.48 

What  State  Laws  Remain  Operative. 


A  national  bankrupt  law  does  not  necessarily  suspend  all  state 
laws  relating  to  insolvency;  only  those  laws  which  are  in  con- 
flict with  the  national  act  are  affected.49  State  laws  remain  in 
full  force  with  respect  to  matters  over  which  the  general  law 
declines  to  take  jurisdiction,50  and  with  respect  to  matters 
wherein  the  amount  involved  is  less  than  that  prescribed  in  the 
general  law.51  State  laws  regulating  assignments  for  the  bene- 
fit of  creditors  but  not  discharging  debtors  from  their  debts,  are 
not  suspended;52  such  a  provision  is  not  necessarily  a  part  of 
an  insolvency  law,53  but  an  assignment  made  as  part  of  the  pro- 
ceedings under  a  state  insolvency  law  is  void  while  a  national 

47  Boedefeld  v.  Reed,  55  Cal.  301;  In  re  Damon,  70  Me.  154;  Palm- 
er v.  Hixon,  74  Me.  448. 

48  Tua  v.  Carriere,  117  TJ.  S.  210,  6  S.  Ct.  555,  29  L.  ed.  855; 
Seattle  Coal  Co.  v.  Thomas,  57  Cal.  197;  Baum  v.  Raphael,  56  Cal.  361; 
Palmer  v.  Hixon,  74  Me.   447. 

49  Mayer  v.  Hellman,  91  TJ.  S.  502,  23  L.  ed.  377;  Chandler  v. 
Saddle,  3  Dill.  477,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2594;  Appeal  of  Geery,  43  Conn. 
289,  21  Am.  Rep.  653;  Pugh  v.  Bussell,  2  Blackf.  394;  Fisk  v.  Mont- 
gomery, 21  Da.  Ann.  446;  Clarke  v.  Ray,  1  Har.  &  J.  318. 

50  In  re  Worcester  County,  102  Fed.  808;  In  re  Wilmington  Hosiery 
Co.,  102  Fed.  808;  In  re  Scholtz,  106  Fed.  834;  Appeal  of  Geery,  43 
Conn.  2S9,  21  Am.  Rep.  653;  Wendell  v.  Debon,  30  Minn.  234,  15  N. 
W.  109;  Simpson  v.  City  Sav.  Bank,  56  N.  H.  466. 

51  Shepardson's  Appeal,   36   Conn.   23. 

52  Mayer  v.  Hellman,  91  U.  S.  502,  23  D.  ed.  377;  In  re  Sievers, 
91  Fed.  368;  Davis  v.  Bohle,  92  Fed.  326;  In  re  Hawkins,  34  Conn. 
348;  Reed  v.  Taylor,  32  Iowa,  209;  Maltbie  v.  Hotchkiss,  38  Conn.  80; 
Ebersole  v.  Adams,  10  Bush,  83;  Dinthicum  v.  Fenley,  11  Bush,  131. 
But  see  Perry  v.  Langley,  19  Fed.  Cas.  284;  Globe  Ins.  Co.  v.  Cleve- 
land Ins.  Co.,  10  Fed.  Cas.  491;  Griswold  v.  Pratt,  9  Met.  17. 

53  Cook  v.  Rogers,  31  Mich.  391;  Thrasiher  v.  Bentley,  1  Abb.  N.  C. 
39. 


1G5  Bankruptcy  Laws.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  4 

law  is  in  operation.54  A  national  act  does  not  operate  to  sus- 
pend state  laws  which  merely  protect  the  person  of  the  debtor 
from  imprisonment  and  do  not  affect  the  contract;55  laws  abol- 
ishing imprisonment  on  civil  process;56  laws  providing  for  the 
arrest  and  punishment  of  fraudulent  debtors  ;57  laws  prohibiting 
fraudulent  conveyances  ;58  or  laws  enabling  a  creditor  to  prevent 
the  departure  of  his  debtor  from  the  state.59  A  law  for  the 
settlement  of  the  insolvent  estates  of  deceased  persons  is  not 
affected,60  nor  is  the  general  equitable  jurisdiction  of  state  courts 
to  wind  up  the  affairs  of  an  insolvent  domestic  corporation 
taken  away  until  the  institution  of  bankruptcy  proceedings.61 
A  state  law  providing  for  the  protection  of  savings  banks  and 
their  depositors  is  effective  during  the  operation  of  a  national 
bankrupt  law.62  A  law  authorizing  a  creditor  to  enforce  by 
warrant  the  payment  of  debts  for  which  the  debtor  has  been 
prosecuted  is  not  an  insolvent  law,  and  is  not  suspended  by  a 
national  act.63 


-  Validity  of  State  Insolvent  Laws  and  Discharges  There- 
under. 


The  power  of  the  states  to  enact  insolvent  laws,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  national  legislation,  is  subject  to  the  constitutional 
prohibition  against  impairing  the  obligation  of  contracts;  such 
a  law  operating  upon  contracts  entered  into  before  its  passage 

54  Howe  v.  Page,  54  N.  H.  190;  Shryock  v.  Bashore,  82  Pa.  St. 
159. 

55  Sullivan  v.  Heiskell,  Crabbe,  525,  Fed.  C'as.  No.  13,594;  Stock- 
well  v.  Silloway,  100  Mass.  287;  Ex  parte  Jacobs,  12  Abb.  Pr.,  N.  S., 
273;  Jordan  v.  Hall,  9  E.  I.  220. 

58  In  re  Eeynolds,  8  E.  I.  485,  5  Am.  Eep.  615;  In  re  Eank,  Crabbe. 
493,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,566;  Shears  v.  Solhinger,  10  Abb.  Pr.,  N.  S., 
287;  Steelman  v.  Mattix,  36  N.  J.  L.  344,  20  Am.  Eep.  389. 

57  Scully  v.  Kirkpatrick,  79  Pa.  St.  324,  21  Am.  Eep.  62;  Bates 
v.  Bowley,  33  Leg.  Int.  202;  Gregg  v.  Hilsen,  34  Leg.  Int.  20. 
5S  Ebersole  v.  Adams,  10  Bush,  83. 

59  Gottschalk  v.  Meyer,  28  La.  Ann.   885. 

60  Hawkins  v.  Learned,  54  N.  H.  333. 

61  Watson  v.  Citizens'  Sav.  Bank,  5  Eich.  159. 

62  Simpson  v.  City  Sav.  Bank,  56  N.  H.  466. 

63  Berthelon  v.  Betts,  4  Hill,  577. 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  -1  Bankruptcy  Laws.  166 

impairs  the  obligation  of  those  contracts  and  is  void.64  An 
amendment  to  an  existing  insolvent  law  is  subject  to  this  pro- 
hibition where  it  reduces  the  number  of  creditors  who  may 
grant  a  release,  or  otherwise  lessens  the  burden  on  the  insol- 
vent.65 If,  however,  the  amendatory  act  is  more  favorable  to 
creditors  than  the  act  amended,  there  can  be  no  objection  to  a 
discharge  on  this  ground.66  A  state  law  cannot  discharge  debts 
existing  but  not  proved  against  the  debtors  estate  at  the  time 
of  its  enactment  ;67  nor  can  it  operate  to  dissolve  an  attachment 
previously  levied.68  A  discharge  under  a  state  law  cannot  sus- 
pend the  operation  of  the  statute  of  limitations  against  assump- 
sit upon  a  contract  made  before  the  passage  of  the  law,  even 
though  payment  was  not  due  until  after.69  The  merger  of  a 
previously  contracted  debt  in  a  judgment  after  the  passage 
of  the  act  does  not  render  the  act  operative  as  to  such  debt.70 
Creditors  of  a  corporation  who  have  accepted  dividends  under 
an  assignment  provided  by  a  state  insolvent  law  are  estopped 
to  set  up  the  invalidity  of  the  law  and  sue  the  stockholders  for 
the  unpaid  residue  of  their  debts.71 

In  considering  the  operation  of  state  insolvent  laws  the  states 
are  to  be  deemed  foreign  to  each  other,72  and  such  laws  cannot 
affect  the  rights  of  nonresident  creditors,73  whether  such  non- 
64  Sturges  v.  CTowninshield,  4  Wheat.  196,  4  L.  ed.  529;  McMillan 
v.  McNeill,  4  Wheat.  209,  4  L.  ed.  552;  Farmers'  etc.  Bank  v.  Smith. 
6  Wheat.  134,  5  L.  ed.  224;  Ogden  v.  Saunders,  12  Wheat,  264,  275, 
2*76,  6  L.  ed.  606;  Planters'  Bank  v.  Sharp,  6  How.  328,  12  L.  ed. 
447;  Baldwin  v.  Hale,  1  Wall.  230,  17  L.  ed.  531;  Williams  v.  Bruffy, 
96  U.  S.  184,  24  L.  ed.  716;  Brown  v.  Smart,  145  U.  S.  457,  12  S.  Ct. 
958,  36  L.  ed.  773;  Smith  v.  Mead,  3  Conn.  256,  8  Am.  Dee:  184; 
Boardman  v.  De  Forest,  5  Conn.  12;  Schwartz  v.  Drinkwater,  70  Me. 
410;  Boosevelt  v.  Cebra,  17  Johns.  10S;  Salters  v.  Tobias,  3  Paige  Ch. 
344;  Elton  v.  O'Connor,  6  N.  Dak.  6,  68  N.  W.  8K 

65  In  re  Wendell,  19  Johns.  153. 

66  Hundley  v.  Chaney,  65  Cal.  363,  4  Pac.  238. 

67  Schwartz  v.  Drinkwater,  70  Me.  410. 

68  Peabody  v.  Stetson,  88  Me.  279,  34  Atl.  76. 

69  Sacia  v.  De  Graff,  1  Cow.  358. 

70  Conway  v.  Seamons,  55  Vt.  11,  45  Am.  Rep.  581. 

71  Van  Hook  v.  Whitloek,  26  Wend.  53,  37  Am.  Dec.  248. 

72  Cook  v.  Moffatt,  5  How.  308,  309,  12  L.  ed.  159;  Beers  v.  Rhea, 
5  Tex.  354. 

73  Sturges  v.  Crowninshicld,  4  Wheat.  207,  4  L.  ed.  529;  McMillan 


167  Bankruptcy  Laws.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  4 

residents  be  citizens  of  the  United  States  or  foreigners.74  So 
actions  upon  negotiable  paper  payable  to  nonresidents  cannot 
be  barred  by  a  discharge  in  insolvency,75  and  this  is  true,  al- 
though the  paper  was  originally  drawn  between  residents  and 

v.  McNeill,  4  Wheat.  212,  4  L.  ed.  552;  Ogden  v.  Saunders,  12  Wheat. 
255,  262,  357,  6  L.  ed.  606;  Suydam  v.  Broadnax,  14  Pet.  75,  10  L. 
ed.  357;  Baldwin  v.  Hale,  1  Wall.  228,  17  L.  ed.  531,  affirming  1  CM. 

514,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5913;  Denny  v.  Bennett,  128  U.  S.  497,  9  S.  Ct. 
137,  32  L.  ed.  491;  Satterthwaite  v.  Ambercrombie,  23  Blatchf.  309, 
24  Ted.  544;  Newton  v.  Hagerman,  10  Saw.  462,  22  Fed.  526;  Von 
G-lahn  v.  Varrenne,  1  Dill.  515,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,994;  Mather  v.  Nes- 
bit,  13  Fed.  872;  Emery  v.  Greenough,  3  Dall.  369,  1  L.  ed.  640; 
Woodhull  v.  Wagner,  Baldw.  296,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,975;  Babcock  v. 
Weston,  1  Gall.  168,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  703;  Hinkley  v.  Mareau,  3  Mason, 
88,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6523;  Campbell  v.  Claudius,  1  Pet.  C.  C.  484,  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  2356;  Springer  v.  Foster,  2  Story,  383,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,266; 
Atwater  v.  Townsend,  4  Conn.  47,  10  Am.  Dec.  97;  Norton  v.  Cook, 
9  Conn.  314,  23  Am.  Dec.  342;  Van  Eaugh  v.  Van  Arsdale,  3  Caines, 
154,  2  Am.  Dee.  159;  Collins  v.  Eodolph,  3  Greene  (Iowa),  299;  Pugh 
v.  Bussell,  2  Blaokf.  394;  Bancher  v.  Fisk,  33  Me.  316;  Feleh  v. 
Bugbee,  48  Me.  13,  77  Am.  Dec.  206;  Braynard  v.  Marshall,  1  Pick. 
196;  Phelps  v.  Borland,  103  N.  Y.  410,  57  Am.  Eep.  756,  9  N.  E. 
309;  Smith  v.  Smith,  2  Johns.  235,  3  Am.  Dee.  410;  Frey  v.  Kirk, 
4  Gill  &  J.  509,  23  Am.  Dec.  581;  Watson  v.  Bourne,  10  Mass.  337, 
6  Am.  Dec.  129;  Potter  v.  Kerr,  1  Md.  Ch.  275;  Vanuxem  v.  Hazel- 
hursts,  1  Southard  550,  7  Am.  Dec.  552;  Main  v.  Messner,  17  Or.  79,  20 
Pac.  255;  Shelton  v.  Wade,  14  Tex.  52,  51  Am.  Deo.  722;  Bedell  v. 
Seranton,  54  Vt.  494. 

74  McMillan  v.  McNeill,  4  Wheat.  212,  4  L.  ed.  552;  Pratt  v.  Chase, 
44  N.  Y.  597,  4  Am.  Eep.  71S. 

75  Baldwin  v.  Hale,  1  Wall.  232,  17  L.  ed.  531,  affirming  1  Cliff. 

515,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5913;  Baldwin  v.  Bank  of  Newbury,  1  Wall.  239, 
17  L.  ed.  534;  Byrd  v.  Badger,  1  McCall,  265,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2265; 
Springer  v.  Foster,  2  Story,  387,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,266;  Ehodes  v. 
Borden,  67  Cal.  9,  6  Pac.  851;  Kelley  v.  Drury,  9  Allen,  29;  Fareira 
v.  Keevil,  18  Mo.  188;  Beers  v.  Ehea,  5  Tex.  349. 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  4  Bankruptcy  Laws.  168 

indorsed  to  a  nonresident.76     Otherwise,  if  it  was  indorsed  after 
maturity,77  unless  before  the  petition  was  filed.77a 

It  is  immaterial  where  the  contract  was  made  or  is  payable,78 
but  where,  at  the  time  of  the  discharge,  both  debtor  and  cred- 
itor are  residents  of  the  same  state,  the  subsequent  removal 
of  the  creditor  to  another  state  or  the  assignment  of  his  rights 
to  a  nonresident,  cannot  remove  the  bar;79  nor  can  a  resident 
creditor  proceed  against  the  property  of  the  insolvent  in  an- 
other state  after  the  discharge  of  the  latter.80  It  has  been 
held  also  that  the  removal  of  a  resident  creditor,  even  before 
the  discharge  was  granted,  will  not  bar  the  release  of  his  debt.81 
A  discharge  of  a  debtor  in  one  state  which  necessarily  leaves  the 
contract  in  force  in  another  state  can  have  no  effect  to  discharge 
the  debtor  in  the  latter  state,  either  from  an  action  on  the  con- 

76  Stevenson  v.  King,  2  Cliff.  2,  Fed.  Gas.  No.  13,417;  Towne  v. 
Smith,  1  Wood.  &  M.  122,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,115;  Anderson  v.  Wheeler, 
25  Conn.  607;  Savoye  v.  Marsh,  10  Met.  595,  43  Am.  Dec.  452; 
Phoenix  Bank  v.  Batchelder,  151  Mass.  591,  24  N.  Ef  918,  8  L.  E.  A. 
644;  Donnell  v.  Lewis  Oounty  Bank,  80  Mo.  172;  Newmarket  Bank 
v.  Butler,  45  N.  H.  236;  Donnelly  v.  Corbett,  7  N.  Y.  500;  Ballard  v. 
Webster,  9  Abb.  Pr.  404;  Smith  v.  Gardner,  4  Bosw.  54;  Chase  v. 
Flagg,  48  Me.  182;  Felch  v.  Bugbee,  48  Me.  9,  77  Am.  Dec.  203; 
Houghton  v.  Maynard,  71  Mass.  552. 

77  Hall  v.  Boardman,  14  N.  H.  38. 

77a  Fessenden  v.  Willey,  84  Mass.  67,  79  Am.  Dec.  762. 

78  Boyle  v.  Zacharie,  6  Pet.  348,  8  L.  ed.  423;  Baldwin  v.  Hale,  1 
Wall.  223,  17  L.  ed.  531;  Babeock  v.  Weston,  1  Gall.  169,  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  703;  Agnew  v.  Piatt,  15  Pick.  420;  Marsh  v.  Putnam,  60  Mass. 
551;  Glenn  v.  Clabaugh,  65  Md.  69,  3  Atl.  904;  Pinckney  v.  Lanohan, 
62  Md.  450;  Larrabee  v.  Talbott,  5  Gill,  438,  46  Am.  Dec.  642;  East- 
erly v.  Goodwin,  35  Conn.  284,  95  Am.  Dec.  238;  Hawley  v.  Hunt,  27 
Iowa,  307,  1  Am.  Rep.  274.  But  see  Smith  v.  Mead,  3  Conn.  253,  8 
Am.  Dec.  183. 

79  Von  Glahn  v.  Varrenne,  1  Dill.  517,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,994; 
Thomas  v.  Crow,  6'5  Gal.  471,  4  Pac.  448;  Pugh  v.  Bussell,  2  Blackf. 
400;  Brighani  v.  Henderson,  1  Cush.  432,  48  Am.  Dec.  611;  Stone  v. 
Tibbetts,  26  Me.  112;  Peck  v.  Hibbard,  26  Vt.  704,  62  Am.  Dec.  609. 

so  Cole  v.  Cunningham,  133  U.  S.  114,  10  S.  Ct.  271,  33  L.  ed.  538; 
Burlock  v.  Taylor,  16  Pick.  341;  Bank  of  Utica  v.  Card,  7  Ohio,  pt. 
2,  170. 

81  Brigham  v.  Henderson,  1  Cush.  430,  48  Am.  Dec.  610;  Converse 
v.  Bradley,  1  Cush.  434;  Stoddard  v.  Harrington,  100  Mass.  87,  1  Am. 
Bep.  92;  Stevens  v.  Norris,  30  N.  H.  466. 


169  Bankruptcy  Laws.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  4 

tract  in  that  state,82  or  from  arrest  and  imprisonment  there;83 
but  where  both  parties  were  residents  a  discharge  will  bar  a 
suit  by  the  creditor  in  any  other  jurisdiction,84  although  the 
creditor  be  an  alien.85 

Nonresident  judgment  creditors  are  also  protected  by  this 
rule,  whether  their  judgments  were  obtained  in  the  state  of 
discharge  or  not;  the  mere  pursuit  of  a  claim  in  the  courts  of 
the  debtor's  domicile  does  not  operate  as  a  waiver  of  the  cred- 
itor's extraterritorial  immunity  from  the  effect  of  the  dis- 
charge.86 Undoubtedly  where  a  creditor  submits  himself  per- 
sonally to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  courts  in  the  discharging' 
state,87  or  has  submitted  his  claim  to  the  jurisdiction  by  pre- 
senting it  to  the  assignee,88  he  is  concluded  by  a  discharge. 
'But  such  submission  to  the  jurisdiction  must  have  been  un- 
equivocal,89 and  voluntary,  with  the  apparent  intent  to  waive 
extraterritorial  immunity.90  Such  a  waiver  may  be  shown  by 
the  creditor's  making  himself  a  party  to  the  insolvency  pro- 

82  Cook  v.  Moffatt,  5  How.  308,  12  L.  ed.  159;  Beers  v.  Ehea,  5 
Tex.  354;  Hinckley  v.  Mareau,  2  Mason,  89,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6523; 
Woodbridge  v.  Wright,  3  Conn.  526. 

83  Woodhull  v.  Wagner,  1  Baldw.  297,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,975;  Judd 
v.  Porter,  7  Me.  340;  Wood  v.  Malin,  16  N.  J.  L.  209. 

84  Hempstead  v.  Keed,  6  Conn.  480;  Williams  v.  Guignard,  2  How. 
(Miss.)  724;  Pitkin  v.  Thompson,  30  Mass.  64;  Hall  v.  Boardman,  14 
N.  H.  38;  Wheelock  v.  Leonard,  20  Pa.  St.  440;  Urton  v.  Hunter, 
2  W.  Va.  83. 

85  Von  Glahn  v.  Varrenne,  1  Dill.  515,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,994. 

86  Worthington  v.  Jerome,  5  Blatchf.  279,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,054; 
Donnelly  v.  Corbett,  7  N.  Y.  503;  Soule  v.  Chase,  39  N.  Y.  344; 
Murphy  v.  Manning,  134  Mass.  489;  Evans  v.  Sprigg,  2  Md.  470; 
Potter  v.  Kerr,  1  Md.  Ch.  281;  Poe  v.  Duck,  5  Md.  6;  Wyman  v. 
Mitchell,  1  Cow.  316;  Watson  v.  Bourne,  10  Mass.  337,  6  Am.  Dec. 
129;  McCarty  v.  Gibson,  5  Gratt.  307;  Hawley  v.  Hunt,  27  Iowa, 
303,  1  Am.  Eep.  273;  Whitney  v.  Whiting,  35  N.  H.  466.  But  see 
Davidson  v.  Smither,  1  Biss.  349;  Betts  v.  Bagley,  29  Mass.  572. 

8T   Von  Glahn  v.  Varrenne,  1  Dill.  517,  Peel.  Cas.  No.  16,994. 

88  Eosenheim  v.  Morrow,  37  Fla.  188,  20  South.  245;  Brown  <r. 
Smart,  6&  Md.  327,  14  Atl.  470. 

89  Donnelly  v.  Corbett,  7  N.  Y.  500. 

90  Denny  v.  Bennett,  128  U.  S.  497,  9  S.  Ct.  137,  32  L.  ed.  491; 
Towne  v.  Smith,  1  Wood.  &  M.  127,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,115;  Newton  v. 
Hagerman,  10  Saw.  462,  22  Fed.  526;  Norton  v.  Cook,  9   Conn.  318, 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  4  Bankruptcy  Laws.  170 

ceedings  and  receiving  a  dividend.91  A  creditor  makes  him- 
self a  party  by  proving  his  debt,92  or  by  uniting  in  recom- 
mending a  trustee,93  and  his  debt  is  barred  by  the  discharge, 
unless  the  court  was  wanting  in  jurisdiction.94  The  mere  ap- 
pearance to  oppose  a  discharge,  however,  will  not  render  the 
discharge  a  bar  to  a  nonresident's  demand.95  Where  a  resident 
creditor  removes  from  the  state  after  the  entry  of  his  judg- 
ment but  before  the  commencement  of  insolvency  proceedings 
a  discharge  will  release  the  judgment,96  and  if  a  foreign  debtor 
removes  to  the  state  where  the  creditor  resides,  and  there  ob- 
tains his  discharge,  the  latter  is  barred.97  The  removal  of  a 
nonresident  creditor  to  the  state  where  his  debtor  resides  ex- 
tinguishes his  immunity.98 

23  Am.  Dec.  344;  Hall  v.  Williams,  6  Pick.  243,  17  Am.  Dec.  364; 
Soule  v.  Chase,  39  N.  Y.  343. 

91  Clay  v.  Smith,  3  Pet.  411,  7  L.  ed.  723;  Gardner  v.  Lee's  Bank, 
11  Barb.  558;  Journeay  v.  Gardner,  65  Mass.  355;  Woodbridge  V. 
Wright,  3  Conn.  523. 

92  Blaekman  v.  Green,  24  Vt.  17. 

93  Jones  v.  Horsey,  4  Md.  306,  59  Am.  De«.  91. 

94  Agnew  v.  Piatt,  32  Mass.  417. 

95  Norton  v.  Cook,  9  Conn.  314,  23  Am.  Dec.  342;  McCarty  v.  Gib- 
son, 5  Gratt.  307;  Collins  v.  Rodolph,  3  Greene  (Iowa),  299. 

96  Brown  v.  Bridge,  106  Mass.  563. 

97  Beall  v.  Burchstead,  64  Mass.  523.  And  see  Babcock  v.  Weston, 
1  Gall.  168,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  703. 

98  Hall  v.  Winchell,  38  Vt.  588. 


Ill  Coinage.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  o 

5.  To  coin  money,  regulate  the  value  thereof,  and  of 
foreign  coin,  and  fix  the  standard  of  weights  and 
measures; 

Money. 

The  term  "money,"  as  used  in  this  clause,  means  gold,  sil- 
ver and  copper  coins,1  and  "to  coin  money"  is  to  mold  into 
form  a  metallic  substance  of  intrinsic  value.2  The  power  to 
coin  money  and  regulate  its  value  is  vested  exclusively  in  Con- 
gress by  this  clause,3  without  limitation  or  restriction,4  its 
object  being  to  create  and  preserve  the  uniformity  and  purity 
01  a  standard  of  value,  and  to  prevent  the  irregularities  and 
confusion  incident  to  different  views  of  policy  which  would 
be  brought  to  bear  on  the  subject.5  It  would  seem  that  under 
its  incidental  powers,  and  without  the  express  grant  contained 
in  the  succeeding  clause,  Congress  would  have  power  to  punisb 
counterfeiting.6  It  is  in  the  discretion  of  Congress  to  make 
gold  and  silver,  or  anything  else,  legal  tender.7  This  grant  of 
power  to  Congress  cannot,  when  read  with  article  I,  section 
10,  clause  1,  denying  to  the  states  the  right  to  emit  bills  of 
credit,  be  deemed  an  implied  prohibition  against  the  making 
of  treasury  notes  legal  tender;8  the  power  to  coin  money  and 

1  Maynard  v.  Newman,  1  Nev.  271;  Thayer  v.  Hedges,  22  Ind. 
301;  Hague  v.  Powers,  39  Barb.  458;  Metropolitan  Bank  v.  Van  Dyek, 
27  N.  Y.  430. 

2  Griswold  v.  Hepburn,  2  Duvall,  29. 

3  Legal  Tender  Cases,  12  Wall.  545,  20  L.  ed.  287;  Van  Husen  v. 
Kanouse,   13   Mich.    303. 

4  Maynard  v.  Newman,  1  Nev.  271;  George  v.  Concord,  45  N.  H. 
434;   Schollenberger  v.  Brinton,  52  Pa.   St.  9. 

6  "United  States  v.  Marigold,  9  How.  567,  13  L.  ed.  257. 

6  Fox  v.  Ohio,  5  How.  433,  12  L.  ed.  213;  United  States  v.  Mari- 
gold, 9  How.  567,  13  L.  ed.  257;  United  States  v.  Yates,  6  Fed.  864. 

7  Anderson  v.  Dunn,  6  Wheat.  220,  5  L.  ed.  242;  Martin  v.  Hunter, 
1  Wheat.  304,  4  L.  ed.  97;  Cohens  v.  Virginia,  6  Wheat.  264,  5  L.  ed. 
257;  Briscoe  v.  Bank  of  Kentucky,  11  Pet.  257,  9  L.  eu.  709;  Legal 
Tender  Cases,  12  Wall.  457,  20  L.  ed.  287;  Metropolitan  Bank  v. 
Van  Dyck,  27  N.  Y.  427;  Norris  v.  Clymer,  2  Pen.  277;  Moor  v. 
Eeading,  21  Pa.  St.  188;  People  v.  Green,  2  Wend.  274;  People  v. 
Constant,  11  Wend.  511. 

8  Legal  Tender  Cases,  12  Wall.  547,  20  L.  ed.  28T. 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  5      Weights  and  Measures.  172 

the  power  to  declare  anything  a  legal  tender  are  distinct.9  The 
grant  of  power  to  coin  money  does  not  necessarily  make  that 
money  a  legal  tender  at  the  fixed  standard,10  and  on  the  other 
hand,  the  legal  tender  acts  do  not  fix  a  standard  of  value,  or 
regulate  money  values,  or  make  that  money  which  has  no  in- 
trinsic value.11 

Weights  and  Measures. 

The  power  to  fix  the  standard  of  weights  and  measures,  while 
granted  to  Congress  by  this  clause,  has  never  been  expressly  de- 
nied to  the  states,  and  on  the  principle  that  it  is  not  the  grant 
of  power  to  Congress,  but  its  actual  exercise  of  that  power  that 
makes  its  action  exclusive,  the  states  may  exercise  this  power  in 
the  absence  of  congressional  action.12  Any  action  by  Congress 
in  the  matter,  however,  would  render  any  conflicting  state  leg- 
islation void.13 

9  Legal  Tender  Cases,  12  Wall.  547,  20  L.  ed.  287 ;  Thayer  v. 
Hedges,  22  Ind.  282. 

io  Van  Husen  v.  Kanouse,  13  Mich.  303. 

11  Legal  Tender  Cases,  12  Wall.  553,  20  L.  ed.  287. 

12  Houston  v.  Moore,  5  Wheat.  49,  5  L.  ed.  19;  Sturges  v.  Crowhin- 
shield,  4  Wheat.  193,  4  L.  ed.  529;  Ogden  v.  Saunders,  12  Wheat.  275, 
276,  307,  6  L.  ed.  606;  Weaver  v.  Fegely,  29  Pa.  St.  27,  T  Am.  Dec. 
151;  Evans  v.  Meyer,  25  Pa.  St.  114;  Farmers'  ete.  Bank  v.  Smith, 
3   Serg.  &  E.  69. 

13  Weaver  v.  Fegely,  29  Pa.  St.  27,  7  Am.  Dec.  151. 


173  Counterfeiting.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  6 

6.     To  provide  for  the  punishment  of  counterfeiting 
the  securities  and  current  coin  of  the  United  States; 

Counterfeiting. 

Congress,  having  created  a  circulating  medium  under  the 
power  granted  in  the  preceding  clause,  must  have  power  to  pre- 
vent its  debasement  and  expulsion;  and  to  this  end  the  power 
stated  in  this  clause  was  granted.1  Under  it  Congress  may 
provide  for  the  punishment  of  the  offense  of  passing,  uttering 
or  selling  counterfeit  coin,2  or  for  importing  and  circulating 
counterfeits,3  and  Congress  may  provide  punishment  for  coun- 
terfeiting foreign  coins  made  current  by  United  States  laws;4 
but  the  coin  counterfeited  must  have  been  included  in  the  act 
of  Congress.5  Congress  may  prohibit  all  imitations  of  metallic 
currency  regardless  of  the  fact  that  the  purpose  of  the  imita- 
tion is  innocent.6  The  offenses  of  counterfeiting  coin  and  of 
passing  counterfeit  money  are  essentially  different,  the  former 
being  an  offense  against  the  government  by  which  individuals 
may  be  affected,  and  the  latter  a  private  wrong  by  which  the 
government  may  be  remotely  reached,  if  at  all.7  The  term 
"securities"  includes  treasury  notes,s  and  notes  of  a  United 
States  bank,8a  and  the  power  to  punish  counterfeiting  of  se- 

i  United  States  v.  Marigold,  9  How.  567,  568,  13  L.  ed.  257;  Ex 
parte  Carll,  106  U.  S.  523,  1  S.  Ct.  536,  27  L.  ed.  288. 
%  United  States  v.  Marigold,  9  How.  567,  13  L.  ed.  257. 

3  United  States  v.  Marigold,  9  How.  568,  13  L.  ed.  257;  Legal 
Tender  Cases,  12  Wall.  658,  20  L.  ed.  287;  Metropolitan  Bank.  v.  Van 
Dyck,   27   N.   Y.   450. 

4  United  States  v.  Gardner,  10  Pet.  624,  9  L.  ed.  556;  United 
States  v.  Brown,  4  McLean,  142,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,667;  United  States 
v.  Burns,  5  McLean,  23,  Fed.   Cas.  No.   14,691. 

5  United  States  v.  Gardner,  10  Pet.  624,  9  L.  ed.  556. 

6  United  States  v.  King,  5  McLean,  210,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,535. 

7  Fox  v.  Ohio,  5  How.  433,  12  L.  ed.  213;  United  States  v.  Copper- 
smith, 2  Flipp.  557,  4  Fed.  206;  Ex  parte  Wilson,  114  U.  S.  423,  5  S. 
Ct.  938,  29  L.  ed.  89. 

8  United  States  v.  Howell,  11  Wall.  437,  20  L.  ed.  195. 

8a  United  States  v.  Turner,  7  Pet.  136,  8  L.  ed.  633;  Ex  parte 
Houghton,  7  Fed.  65S,  8  Fed.  897;  State  v.  Kandall,  2  Ark.  89. 


Aj-L  I,  §  8,  CI.  <S  Counterfeiting.  17-1 

curities  extends  to  securities  issued  by  foreign  countries  or  un- 
der their  authority.9 

Powers  of  the  States. 


The  distinction  drawn  between  counterfeiting  coin  and  pass- 
ing counterfeit  coin,  viz.,  that  the  former  is  an  offense  against 
the  United  States  and  the  latter  an  offense  against  the  state,10 
while  it  does  not  devest  the  federal  government  of  power  to 
punish  the  passing  of  counterfeits  as  an  incident  of  its  power  to 
punish  counterfeiting,11  is  the  ground  for  the  holding  that  the 
power  of  Congress  to  punish  the  passing  of  counterfeit  money  is 
not  exclusive.12  State  courts  have  asserted  the  authority  of  the 
states  to  even  punish  counterfeiting,13  or  having  in  one's  pos- 
session instruments  adapted  and  designed  for  making  counter- 
feit coin.14 

9  United  States  v.  Arjona,  120  IT.  S.  488,  7  S.  Ct.  628.  30  L.  ed. 
728;  People  v.  McDonnell,  80  Cal.  288,  13  Am.  St.  Rep.  163,  22  Pac. 
191. 

10  Fox  v.  Ohio,  5  How.  433,  434,  12  L.  ed.  213;  United  States  v. 
Marigold,  9  How.  560,  13  L.  ed.  257;  People  v.  White,  34  Cal.  183; 
Harlan  v.  People,  1  Dong.  (Mich.)  207;  Sizemore  v.  State,  3  Head. 
26;  State  v.  Antonio,  2  Tread.  776. 

n  Cf.  Fox  v.  Ohio,  5  How.  433,  12  L.  ed.  213,  and  United  States 
v.  Marigold,  9  How.  567,  568,  13  L.  ed.  257. 

12  Fox  v.  Ohio,  5  How.  433,  12  L.  ed.  213;  United  States  v.  Mari- 
gold, 9  How.  567,  13  L.  ed.  257;  Commonwealth  v.  Fuller,  8  Met. 
313,  41  Am.  Dec.  509;  State  v.  Pitman,  1  Brev.  32,  2  Am.  Dec.  645; 
State  v.  Tutt,  2  Bail.  44,  21  Am.  Dec.  508;  Sizemore  v.  State,  3  Head, 
26;  Dashing  v.  State,  78  Ind.  358;  Martin  v.  State,  18  Tex.  App. 
225;  Jett  v.  Commonwealth,  18  Gratt.  953. 

13  Martin  v  State,  18  Tex.  App.  225;  State  v.  Randall,  2  Ark. 
89;  People  v.  McDonnell,  8~0  Cal.  288,  13  Am.  St.  Rep.  163,  22  Pac. 
191. 

14  Harlan  v.  People,  1  Doug.  (Mich.)  219;  State  v.  Brown,  2  Or. 
221. 


175  Postoffices.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  7 

7.     To  establish  postoffices  and  post-roads. 

Postoffices. 

The  power  given  to  Congress  by  this  clause  embraces  the 
regulation  of  the  entire  postal  system  of  the  country.1  "To 
establish"  comprehends  the  renting  or  erection  of  buildings,  and 
the  appropriation  of  money  for  such  purposes,2  and  thi  mak- 
ing of  contracts  relating  to  the  mails.23.  Any  means  appro- 
priate to  the  exercise  of  the  power  may  be  employed  by  Con- 
gress, as  appointing  postmasters,  defining  their  duties  and  com- 
pensation, and  providing  for  carriage  of  the  mails.3  Congress 
may  determine  what  may  be  carried  in  the  mails,4  and  may  ex- 
clude matter  issued  in  the  furtherance  of  fraudulent  schemes,5 
lottery  advertisements  and  letters  or  packages  addressed  to  lot- 
teries,6 and  obscene  matter.7  In  thus  excluding  matter  from 
the  mails  Congress  does  not  interfere  with  the  freedom  of  the 
press;8  nor  does  the  fact  that  the  transmission  of  such  matter 

1  In  re  Jackson,  96  U.  S.  732,  24  L.  ed.  877;  In  re  Rapier,  143 
TJ.  S.  133,  12  S.  Ct.  374,  36  L.  ed.  93;  Commerford  v.  Thompson,  2 
Flipp.  613,  1  Fed.  417;  Weeber  v.  United  States,  62  Fed.  741; 
United  States  v.  Loring,  91  Fed.  882. 

2  Searight  v.  Stokes,  3  How.  151,  11  L.  ed.  537;  Neil  v.  State, 
3  How.  720.  11  L.  ed.  800;  Dickey  v.  Maysville  etc.  Co.,  7  Dana,  113. 

2a  Searight  v.  Stokes,  3  How.  151,  11  L.  ed.  537. 

3  United  States  v.  Rhodes,  1  Abb.  U.  S.  50,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,151; 
United  States  v.  McCready,  11  Fed.  225. 

4  Ex  parte  Jackson,  96  U.  S.  732,  24  L.  ed.  877;  In  re  Rapier, 
143  U.  S.  133,  12  S.  Ct.  374,  36  L.  ed.  93. 

5  Weeber  v.  United  States,  62  Fed.  741;  Hoover  v.  McChesney, 
81  Fed.  478;  In  re  Henry,  123  U.  S.  375,  8  S.  Ct.  142,  31  L.  ed.  174; 
Ex  parte  De  Bara,  179  U.  S.  322,  21  S.  Ct.  110,  45  L.  ed.  207. 

6  In  re  Rapier,  143  U.  S.  133,  12  S.  Ct.  374,  36  L.  ed.  93;  Horner 
v.  United  States.  143  U.  S.  213,  12  S.  Ct.  409,  36  L.  ed.  126;  S.  C, 
143  U.  S.  578,  12  S.  Ct.  525,  36  L.  ed.  266;  France  v.  United  States, 
164  U.  S.  682,  17  S.  Ct.  219,  41  L.  ed.  595;  In  re  Jackson,  14"  Blatchf. 
245,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7124;  Enterprise  Sav.  Assn.  v.  Zumstein,  67  Fed. 
1005. 

7  Ex  parte  Jackson,  96  U.  S.  736,  24  L.  ed.  877;  Rosen  v.  United 
States,  161  U-  S.  42,  16  S.  Ct.  434,  40  L.  ed.  606;  United  States  v. 
Bennett,  16  Blatchf.  343,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,571;  United  States  V. 
Loftis,  8   Saw.  197,  12  Fed.  674. 

8  In  re  Rapier,  143  U.  S.  133,  12  S.  Ct.  374,  36  L.  ed.  93;  Horner 


A  rt.  I,  §  8,  CI.  7  Post-roads.  176 

was  not  prohibited  prior  to  the  grant  of  this  power,  abridge 
the  power.9  The  punishment  of  depredations  on  the  mails  or 
obstructions  to  the  service  is  an  incident  of  this  power.10  The 
Btatea  have  concurrent  power  to  punish  highway  robbery  of  the 
mails.11  and  to  punish  the  offense  of  opening  letters  addressed 
to  another.12  Congress  may  confer  jurisdiction  on  state  courts 
to  punish  offenses  under  the  postal  laws.13 

Post-roads. 

The  power  to  establish  post-roads  was  given  to  enable  the 
general  government  to  make,  repair,  keep  open,  and  improve 
whenever  necessary  to  effectuate  the  satisfactory  trans- 
portation of  mail;  it  is  plenary  and  embraces  everything  nec- 
essary and  proper  to  that  end.14  The  power  comprehends  such 
roads  as  are  regularly  laid  out  by  authority  of  the  states  or  by 
counties  under  state  laws.15  The  theory  that  the  power  to  es- 
tablish post-roads  is  exhausted  by  the  designation  of  roads  on 
which  the  mails  are  to  be  transported16  has  been  overruled, 
and  the  power  of  the  United  States  to  construct  highways  con- 

v.  United  States,  143  TJ.  S.  213,  12  S.  Ct.  409,  36  L.  ed.  126;  S.  C,  143 
TJ.  S.  578,  12  S.  Ct.  525,  36  L.  ed.  266;  Harmon  v.  United  States, 
50  Fed.  922;  and  see  State  v.  Van  Wye,  136  Mo.  236,  58  Am.  St.  Rep. 
631,  37  S.  W.  940. 

9  In  re  Rapier,  143  TJ.  S.  134,  12  S.  Ct.  374,  36  L.  ed.  93;  In  re 
Jackson.  14  Blatchf.  245,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7124. 

10  United  States  v.  Kirby,  7  Wall.  485,  19  L.  ed.  27$;  Ini  re  Rapier, 
143  U.  S.  134,  12  S.  Ct.  374,  36  L.  ed.  93;  In  re  Debs,  158  U.  S.  581, 
15  S.  Ct.  900,  39  L.  ed.  1092;  Sturtevant  v.  Alton,  3  McLean,  393, 
Fed.   Cas.   No.   13,580;   United   States  v.   Rhodes,   1   Abb.   U.   S.   50, 

Cas.  Xo.  13,151;  United  States  v.  McCready,  11  Fed.  225. 

11  Houston  v.  Moore,  5  Wheat.  34,  5  L.  ed.  19. 

12  In  re  Noah,  3  City  H.  Rec.  13. 

13  State  v.  Wells,  2  Hill,  687.  Contra,  State  v.  McBride,  1  Rice, 
400. 

14  Dickey  v.  Maysville  etc.  Co.,  7  Dana,  113;  Searight  v.  Stokes, 
3  How.  151,  11  L.  ed.  537. 

15  Cleveland  etc.  Co.  v.  Franklin  Canal  Co.,  Fed.  Caa.  No.  2890; 
Pennsylvania  v.  Wheeling  etc.  Br.  Co.,  18  How.  421,  15  L.  ed.  435; 
Dickey  v.  Maysville  etc.  Co.,  7  Dana,  113. 

16  United  States  v.  Railroad  Br.  Co.,  6  McLean,  517,  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  16,114. 


177  Post-roads.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  7 

necting  the  several  states,  or  to  authorize  corporations  to  do  so, 
asserted;17  but  Congress  cannot  declare  a  state  highway  to  lie 
a  post-road  and  give  anyone  authority  to  use  it,  without  the 
consent  of  the  state  or  owner,  or  without  compensation.18  The 
power  of  Congress  in  this  respect  must  keep  pace  with  and 
adapt  itself  to  new  developments;  accordingly,  Congress  may 
grant  rights  to  telegraph  companies  over  post-roads,  whether 
on  the  public  domain  or  not.19  Letter  routes  established  in 
cities  are  to  be  deemed  post-roads  for  the  purposes  of  an  act 
imposing  penalties  for  carrying  mailable  matter.20 

17  California  v.  Central  Pac.  E.  E.,  127  U.  S.  39,  8  S.  Ct.  1073,  32 
L.  ed.  150;  Luxton  v.  North  Eiver  Br.  Co.,  153  U.  S.  529,  14  S.  Ct. 
891,  38  L.  ed.  808. 

18  Dickey  v.  Maysville  etc.  Co.,  7  Dana,  113. 

19  Pensacola  Tel.  Co.  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  96  U.  S.  12,  24 
L.  ed.  708;  "Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Mayor,  38  Fed.  560. 

20  Blackham  v.  Gresham,  16  Fed.  600;  United  States  v.  Easson,  18 
Fed.  590. 

Notes  on  Constitution — 12 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  8     Patents  and  Copyrights.  178 

8.  To  promote  the  progress  of  science  and  useful  arts 
by  securing  for  limited  times  to  authors  and  inventors 
the  exclusive  right  to  their  respective  writings  and  dis- 
coveries; 

Extent  of  Power. 

Under  the  power  thus  conferred,  Congress  may  grant  to 
authors  and  inventors,  rights  which  are  coextensive  with  the 
territory  of  the  United  States.1  But  the  rights  thus  conferred 
are  domestic  in  character  and  are  confined  within  that  ter- 
ritory;2 they  are  derived  exclusively  from  acts  of  Congress, 
can  be  had  only  in  the  manner  prescribed,  and  cannot  go  be- 
yond them.3  The  power  to  protect  writings  and  inventions 
refers  to  fruits  of  intellectual  labor  and  does  not  extend  to  the 
protection  of  trademarks;4  its  exercise  is  limited  to  authors 
and  inventors.4*  It  is  for  Congress  to  determine  for  what 
time  and  under  what  circumstances  protection  shall  be  granted.5 
While  rights  are  to  be  secured  for  but  a  limited  time,6  Con- 
gress may  extend  the  term  upon  the  expiration  of  the  time 
originally  specified,7  and  in  doing  so  protect  the  rights  of  pur- 

1  Stevens  v.  Gladding,  17  How.  451,  15  L.  ed.  155;  Ager  v.  Murray, 
105  TJ.  S.  130,  26  L.  ed.  942;  Carver  v.  Peck,  131  Mass.  294;  Wilson 
v.  Martin-Wilson  etc.  Co.,  151  Mass.  520,  24  N.  E.  786,  8  L.  R.  A. 
309. 

2  Brown  v.  Duchesne,  19  How.  198,  199,  15  L.  ed.  595. 

3  Shaw  v.  Cooper,  7  Pet.  319,  8  L.  ed.  689;  Brown  v.  Duchesne,  19 
How.  195,  15  L.  ed.  595;  Banks  v.  Manchester,  128  U.  S.  252,  9  S.  Ct. 
36,  32  L.  ed.  425. 

4  Trademark  Cases,  100  H.  S.  94,  25  L.  ed.  550;  Higgins  v.  Keuffel, 
140  U.  S.  431,  11  S.  Ct.  732,  35  L.  ed.  475;  Schumacher  v.  Schwencke, 
26  Fed.  818,  819;  Liedersdorf  v.  Flint,  8  Biss.  327,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
8219. 

4a  Livingston  v.  Van  Ingen,  9  Johns.  507. 

5  Evans  v.  Jordan,  9  Cr.  199,  3  L.  ed.  704;  Jordan  v.  Dobson,  4 
4  Fish.  232,  2  Abb.  U.  S.  398,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1519;  Blanchard  v. 
Sprague,  3  Sum.  535,  2  Story,  164,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1518. 

6  Livingston  v.  Van  Ingen,  9  Johns.  509. 

7  Evans  v.  Jordan,  9  Cr.  203,  3  L.  ed.  704;  Bloomer  v.  Stolley,  5 
McLean,  158,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1559;  Blanchard  'a  G.  S.  Fact.  v.  Warner, 
1  Blatchf.  258,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1521;  Jordan  v.  Dobson,  4  Fish.  232,  2 
Abb.  TJ.  S.  398,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7519. 


179  Patents  and  Copykights.     Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  S 

chasers  and  assignees,8  and  this  may  he  done  hy  special  act.9 
Congress  may  modify  rights  under  an  existing  patent,  provided 
vested  property  rights  are  not  thereby  impaired.10 

The  power  of  Congress  in  relation  to  patents  and  copyrights, 
when  exercised,  is  exclusive.11  There  is  a  clear  distinction, 
however,  between  the  right  of  property  in  the  physical  sub- 
stance which  is  the  fruit  of  an  invention,  and  the  right  in  the 
invention  itself,12  and  between  a  copyright  and  the  particular 
form  which  the  author's  production  ultimately  takes.13  Ac- 
cordingly, while  a  state  cannot  tax  patent  rights  and  copyrights 
as  such,14  or  regulate  the  sale  of  the  rights  themselves,15  it 
may  tax  the  articles  manufactured  or  produced  under  the  right 
protected  by  Congress,16  and  may  regulate  sales  of  such  arti- 
cles;17 all  rights  conferred  under  this  clause  must  be  exercised 

8  Bloomer  v.  McQuewan,  14  How.  549,  14  L.  ed.  532;  Bloomer  v. 
Millinger,  1  Wall.  350,  17  L.  ed.  581;  Eunson  v.  Dodge,  18  Wall.  416, 
21  L.  ed.  766;  Blanchard  's  G.  S.  Fact.  v.  Warner,  1  Blatchf.  258,  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  1521. 

9  Bloomer  v.  McQuewan,  14  How.  548,  14  L.  ed.  532;  Bloomer  v. 
Stolley,  5  McLean,  158,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1559. 

10  McClurg  v.  Kingsland,  1  How.  206,  11  L.  ed.  102. 

11  Brown  v.  Duchesne,  19  How.  195,  15  L.  ed.  595;  In  re  Robinson, 
2  Biss.  309,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,932;  Woollen  v.  Banker,  2  Flipp.  33, 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,030;  Cranson  v.  Smith,  37  Mich.  309;  State  v.  Lock- 
wood,  43  Wis.  403;  Crittenden  v.  White,  23  Minn.  24,  23  Am.  Eep. 
676;  Wilch  v.  Phelps,  14  Neb.  134,  15  N.  W.  362;  Hollida  v.  Hunt, 
70  111.  Ill,  22  Am.  Eep.  65.  But  see  Tod  v.  Wick  Bros.,  30  Ohio  St. 
370;  Haskell  v.  Jones,  86  Pa.  St.  173. 

12  Patterson  v.  Kentucky,  97  U.  S.  506,  24  L.  ed.  1115;  Belknap  v. 
Schild,  161  U.  S.  24,  16  S.  Ct.  448,  40  L.  ed.  599;  Commonwealth 
v.  Petty,  96  Ky.  454,  29  S.  W.  292,  29  L.  R.  A.  786. 

13  Holme®  v.  Hurst,  174  U.  S.  86,  19  S.  Ct.  606,  43  L.  ed.  904; 
Yuengling  v.  Schill,  20  Blatchf.  452,  12  Fed.  97. 

14  In  re  Sheffield,  64  Fed.  834;  People  v.  Roberts,  159  N.  Y.  75,  53 
N.  E.  686,  45  L.   R.   A.   126. 

15  Castle  v.  Hutchinson,  25  Fed.  394;  In  re  Robinson,  2  Biss.  309, 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,932;  Crittenden  v.  White,  23  Minn.  24,  23  Am.  Rep. 
676;  Wilch  v.  Phelps,  14  Neb.  134,  15  N.  W.  362. 

16  Webber  v.  Virginia,  103  U.  S.  344,  26  L.  ed.  565. 

17  Patterson  v.  Kentucky,  97  U.  S.  505,  24  L.  ed.  1115;  In  re  Bros- 
nahan,  4  McCrary,  6,  18  Fed.  65;  Palmer  v.  State,  39  Ohio  St.  239, 
48  Am.    Rep.   431;   Reeves    v.   Corning,   51    Fed.   784;   Breechbill  v. 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  8      Patents  and  Copyrights.  180 

in  subordination  to  proper  police  regulations  established  by  the 
Btates.18  The  exemption  of  patent  rights  from  taxation  does 
not  extend  to  stock  of  corporations  issued  in  consideration  of 
the  exclusive  right  to  use  patented  articles;  such  stock  does 
not  constitute  an  investment  in  patent  rights,19  such  as  has 
been  declared  to  be  exempt.20 

Copyrights. 

A  copyright  is  an  incorporeal  right  to  print  a  set  of  in- 
tellectual ideals,  or  modes  of  thinking,  communicated  in  a  set 
of  words  or  sentences,  and  modes  of  expression,21  and  "writ- 
ings," as  here  used  means  literary  productions,  and  includes 
all  forms  by  which  an  author's  ideas  are  given  visible  expres- 
sion.22 The  word  "copyright"  is  to  be  construed  with  reference 
to  the  words  of  the  constitution,  "to  promote  the  progress  pi 
science  ana  the  useful  arts."23  This  phrase  fixes  the  standard 
by  which  the  right  to  protection  is  to  be  judged,  and  makes  any- 
thing which  is  the  representative  of  original  intellectual  con- 
ceptions of  an  author   the  subject  of  copyright.24     So  orna- 

Randall,  102  Ind.  529,  52  Am.  Rep.  696,  1  N.  E.  363;  Mason  v.  Mc- 
Leod,  57  Kan.  109,  57  Am,  St.  Eep.  329,  45  Pac.  77,  41  L.  R.  A.  548. 

18  Patterson  v.  Kentucky,  97  U.  S.  505,  24  L.  ed.  1115;  Webber 
v.  Virginia,  103  U.  S.  344,  26  L.  ed.  565;  In  re  Brosnahan,  4  McCrary, 
6,  18  Fed.  65;  State  v.  Telephone  Co.,  36  Ohio  St.  227,  38  Am.  Rep. 
583. 

19  Crown  Cork  etc.  Co.  v.  State,  87  Md.  699,  67  Am.  St.  Rep.  375, 
40  Atl.  1076;  Commonwealth  v.  Telegraph  Co.,  145  Pa.  St.  127,  27 
Am.  St.  Rep.  679,  22  Atl.  842;  Commonwealth  v.  Electric  Light  Co., 
145  Pa.  St.  140,  27  Am.  St.  Rep.  684,  22  Atl.  846. 

20  Commonwealth  v.  Westinghouse  Electric  Co.,  151  Pa.  St.  265, 
24  Atl.  1107,  1111;  Commonwealth  v.  Westinghouse  Air  Brake  Co., 
151  Pa.  St.  276,  24  Atl.  1111;  Commonwealth  v.  Philadelphia  Co., 
157  Pa.  St.  527,  27  Atl.  378;  Commonwealth  v.  Edison  Co.,  157  Pa.  St. 
529,  37  Am.  St.  Rep.  747,  27  Atl.  379.  Contra,  People  v.  Campbell, 
13S  N.  Y.  543,  34  N.  E.  370,  20  L.  R.  A.  453. 

21  Holmes  v.  Hurst,  174  TJ.  S.  8-6,  19  S.  Ct.  606,  43  L.  ed.  904. 

JJ2  Burrows  etc.  Lith.  Co.  v.  Sarony,  111  XJ.  S.  58,  4  S.  Ct.  279,  28 
L.  ed.  349;  Press  Pub.  Co.  v.  Palk,  59  Fed.  326;  Henderson  v.  Tomp- 
kins, 60  Fed.  763;  Workmeister  v.  Springer  Lith.  Co.,  63  Fed.  810. 

23  Baker  v.  Selden,  101  TJ.  S.  105,  25  L.  ed.  841. 

24  Burrow  etc.  Lith.  Co.  v.  Sarony,  111  U.  S.  58,  4  S.  Ct.  279.  28 


181  Patents  and  Copyrights.     Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  8 

mental  designs  or  pictorial  illustrations  addressed  to  the  taste 
may  be  copyrighted,25  hut  not  a  mere  illustrated  catalogue26 
or  a  label.27  In  the  United  States,  copyright  exists  only  by 
virtue  of  federal  statutes  and  can  be  had  only  in  the  manner 
prescribed  thereby;  it  cannot  be  sustained  as  a  right  at  common 
law.2S  Copyright  protects  the  intellectual  production  of  the 
author  only,  and  not  the  particular  form  which  such  produc- 
tion ultimately  takes,29  and  an  author  can  have  no  exclusive 
property  in  a  published  work  except  under  some  act  of  Con- 
gress.30 Accordingly,  the  copyright  of  a  system  of  bookkeeping 
confers  no  exclusive  right  to  account  books  ruled  and  arranged 
as  illustrated  therein;31  nor  does  the  copyright  of  a  treatise 
on  medicine  or  mathematics  give  an  exclusive  right  to  use  the 
methods  set  forth;32  nor  the  copyright  of  a  map  entitle  the 
author  to  the  exclusive  use  of  the  signs  and  key  adopted  to 
render  delineations  intelligible.33 

All  products  of  intellectual  labor,  printed  and  first  published 
in  the  United  States,  may  be  protected  under  this  clause;34 

L.  ed.  349:  Thornton  v.  Sehreiber,  124  U.  S.  613,  8  S.  Ct.  618,  31  L. 
ed.   577;   Schumacher  v.  Schwencke,  23  Blatchf.   377,  25  Ted.  468. 

25  Baker  v.  Selden,  101  U.  S.  107,  2,5  L.  ed.  841;  Bleistein  v. 
Donaldson  Lith.  Co.,  188  U.  S.  239,  23  S.  Ct.  298,  47  L.  ed.  460. 

26  J.  L.   Mott  Iron  Works  v.  Clow,  83  Fed.  318. 

27  Higgins  v.  Keuffel,  140  IT.  S.  430,  11  S.  Ct.  731,  35  L.  ed.  470. 

28  Wheaton  v.  Peters.  8  Pet.  661,  8  L.  ed.  1055;  Banks  v.  Man- 
chester, 128  U.  S.  252,  9  S.  Ct.  39,  32  L.  ed.  425;  Thompson  v.  Hub- 
bard, 131  U.  S.  151,  9  S.  Ct.  720,  33  L.  ed.  76;  Boucicault  v.  Hart,  13 
Blatchf.  50,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1692;  Donnelly  v.  Ivers,  20  Blatchf.  383, 
18  Fed.  593;  Crowe  v.  Aiken,  2  Biss.  214,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3441. 

29  Holmes  v.  Hurst,  174  U.  S.  89,  19  S.  Ct.  606,  43  L.  ed.  904. 

30  Wheaton  v.  Peters,  8  Pet.  591,  8  L.  ed.  1055;  Dudley  v.  Mayhew, 
3  N.  Y.  12. 

31  Baker  v.  Selden,  101  U.  S.  107,  25  L.  ed.  844. 

32  Baker  v.  Selden,  101  U.  S.  103,  25  L.  ed.  841;  Simms  v.  Stanton, 
75  Fed.  10. 

33  Ferris  v.  Hexamer,  99  U.  S.  676,  25  L.  ed.  308. 

34  Wheaton  v.  Peters,  8  Pet.  591,  8  L.  ed.  1055;  Jollie  v.  Jacques, 
1  Blatchf.  618,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7437;  Clayton  v.  Stone,  2  Paine,  283, 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  2872;  Binns  v.  Woodruff,  4  Wash.  C.  C.  48,  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  1424. 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  8      Patents  and  Copyrights.  182 

e.  g.,  original  writings,35  ornamental  designs  or  pictorial  illus- 
trations,36 photographs,37  maps.38  Any  person,  however,  may 
express  truths  of  a  science,  or  explain  and  use  methods  of  art 
which  are  the  common  property  of  the  race.39  Judges  have  no 
proprietorship  in  their  opinions,  which  are  free  to  all  and 
not  the  subject  of  copyright  ;40 .  nor  can  a  reporter  of  law  re- 
j>orts  copyright  opinions,  syllabi,  and  statements  of  cases  pre- 
pared by  the  judges,41  but  a  reporter  is  an  author  to  the  extent 
of  his  own  compositions  in  the  reports  and  as  to  such  matter  is 
entitled  to  copyright.42  A  state  is  not  a  "person"  entitled  to 
protection  under  the  copyright  laws.43  This  clause  does  not  au- 
thorize the  protection  of  a  composition  which  is  grossly  inde- 
cent and  tends  to  corrupt  the  morals  of  the  people.44  A  series 
of  photographs  arranged  for  use  in  a  machine  so  as  to  produce 
a  panoramic  effect  are  not  entitled  to  copyright.45  A  news- 
paper in  its  entirety  is  not  the  subject  of  a  general  copyright.46 
It  seems  that  in  the  absence  of  congressional  legislation  upon 
this  subject  the  states  may  protect  literary  productions,47  but 

35  Higgins  v.  Keuffel,  140  U.  S.  430,  11  S.  Ct.  731,  35  L.  ed.  470; 
Baker  v.  Selden,  101  U.  S.  102,  25  L.  ed.  841;  Holmes  v.  Hurst,  174 
U.  S.  85,  19  S.  Ct.  606,  43  L.  ed.  904. 

30  Baker  v.  Selden,  101  U.  S.  103,  25  L.  ed.  841. 

37  Burrows  etc.  Lith.  Co.  v.  Sarony,  111  U.  S.  58,  4  S.  Ct.  279,  28 
L.  ed.  349,  affirming  17  Fed.  591;  Thornton  v.  Schreaber,  124  U.  S. 
613,  8  S.  Ct.  618,  31  L.  ed.  577,  affirmuig  17  Fed.  603;  Press  Pub. 
Co.  v.  Falk,  59  Fed.  324. 

38  Perris  v.  Hexamer,  99  U.  S.  676,  25  L.  ed.  308. 

39  Baker  v.  Selden,  101  U.  S.  100,  25  L.  ed.  841. 

40  Banks  v.  Manchester,  128  U.  S.  253,  9  S.  Ct.  39,  32  L.  ed.  425. 

41  Banks  v.  Manchester,  23  Fed.  145;  West  Pub.  Co.  v.  Lawyer's 
Co-op.  etc.  Co.,  64  Fed.  364,  25  L.  E.  A.  441. 

42  Callaghan.  v.  Myers,  128  U.  S.  647,  9  S.  Ct.  184,  32  L.  ed.  547; 
Little  v.  Gould,  2  Blatchf.  364,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8395;  Howell  v.  Miller, 
91  Fed.  138. 

43  Banks  v.  Manchester,  128  IT.  S.  253,  9  S.  Ct.  39,  32  L.  ed.  425. 

44  Martinetti  v.  Maguire,  Deady,  216,  1  Abb.  U.  S.  356>,  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  9173. 

45  Edison  v.  Lubin,  119  Fed.  993. 

46  Tribune  Co.  v.  Associated  Press,  116  Fed.  126. 

4  7  Passenger  Cases,  7  How.  365,  12  L.  ed.  702;  Moore  v.  Illinois, 


183  Patents  and  Copyeights.     Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  8 

a  state  can  in  no  way  interfere  with  copyrights  acquired  under 
federal  laws.48 

Patents. 

The  power  of  Congress  in  relation  to  patents  is  plenary,49 
and  it  cannot  be  limited,  controlled,  or  even  exercised  by  the 
states.50  There  is  no  restriction  upon  Congress  as  to  the  time 
for  which  protection  shall  be  granted,51  nor  as  to  the  nature 
of  the  invention  which  shall  be  subject  to  patent;  all  that  is 
required  is  that  there  be  an  invention.52  The  purpose  of  this 
clause  is  to  "promote  the  progress  of  science  and  useful  arts"  ;53 
to  reward  substantial  discoveries.54 

The  language  of  the  clause  limits  Congress  to  the  protection 

14  How.   20,  14  L.  ed.  306;  Briggs  v.  Johnson  Co.,  1  Dill.  151,  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  1872;  Livingstone  v.  Van  Ingen,  9  Johns.  507. 

48  Little  v.  Gould,  2  Blatehf.  165,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8394. 

49  Evans  v.  Eaton,  3  Wheat.  454,  4  L.  ed.  433,  7  Wheat.  356,  5 
L.  ed.  472;  Evans  v.  Hettich,  7  Wheat.  453,  5  L.  ed.  496;  MeClurg 
v.  Kingsland,  1  How.  202,  11  L.  ed.  102;  Brown  v.  Duchesne,  19  How. 
195,  15  L.  ed.  595;  Blanchard  v.  Sprague,  3  Sum.  541,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
1518. 

50  Woolen  v.  Banker,  2  Flipp.  33,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,030;  Ex  parte 
Eobinson,  2  Bias,  309,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,932;  Helm  v.  First  Nat.  Bank, 
43  Ind.  167,  13  Am.  Eep.  395;  Grover  etc.  Co.  v.  Butler,  53  Ind.  454, 
21  Am.  Eep.  200;  Cranson  v.  Smith,  37  Mich.  309;  Hollida  v.  Hunt, 
70  111.  Ill,  22  Am.  Eep.  65. 

51  Evans  v.  Jordan,  9  Cr.  199,  3  L.  ed.  704;  Jordan  v.  Dobson,  4 
Fish.  232,  2  Abb.  U.  S.  398,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7519;  Blanchard  v.  Sprague, 
3  Sum.  535,  2  Story,  164. 

52  Evans  v.  Jordan,  9  Cr.  199,  3  L.  ed.  704;  Jordan  v.  Dobson,  4 
Fish.  232,  2  Abb.  U.  S.  398,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7519;  Blanchard  v.  Sprague, 
2  Story,  164,  3  Sum.  535. 

53  Grant  v.  Eaymond,  6  Pet.  218,  8  L.  ed.  376;  Hogg  v.  Emerson, 
6  How.  486,  2  L.  ed.  505;  Brooks  v.  Fiske,  15  How.  223,  14  L.  ed. 
665;  Blanchard  v.  Sprague,  2  Story,  164,  3  Sum.  535. 

54  Atlantic  Works  v.  Brady,  107  U.  S.  200,  2  S.  Ct.  296,  27  L.  ed. 
438;  Slawson  v.  Grand  St.  E.  E.,  107  U.  S.  655,  2  S.  Ct.  663,  27  L.  ed. 
576. 


Art,  I,  §  8,  CI.  8     Patents  and  Copyrights.  184 

of  "useful"  inventions.55  "Invention'  implies  originality,56 
novelty,57  the  finding  out,  contriving  or  creating  something 
which  did  not  exist  before.58  The  utility  of  a  device  cannot 
entitle  one  to  a  patent;  however  useful  it  may  be,  if  not  new, 
it  is  not  patentable.59  An  invention  must  be  the  product  of 
the  inventor's  mind,60  and  not  the  result  of  mere  mechanical 
skill;01  but  a  mental  conception  not  reduced  to  definite  physi- 
cal representation  is  not  an  invention.62 

The  law  authorizing  the  grant  of  patents  for  designs  was 
intended  to  encourage  the  decorative  arts,  and.  contemplated  ap- 
pearance rather  than  utility;63  but  utility  is  an  element  for 

55  Seymour  v.  Osborne,  11  Wall.  549,  20  L.  ed.  33;  O'Reilly  v. 
Morse,  15  How.  119,  14  L.  ed.  601;  Strobridge  v.  Lindsay,  2  Fed. 
695;  Gottfried  v.  Phillip  Best  B.  Co.,  10  Fed.  Caa.  851;  Judson  v. 
Bradford,  14  Fed.  Gas.  9. 

50  Blake  v.  Stafford,  3  Fish.  305,  6  Blatchf.  195,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1504. 

57  Pennock  v.  Dialogue,  2  Pet.  20,  7  L.  ed.  327. 

58  Le  Roy  v.  Tatham,  14  How.  177,  14  L.  ed.  367;  Aron  v.  Man- 
hattan Ry.,  132  U.  S.  90,  10  S.  Ct.  24,  33  L.  ed.  272;  Busell  Trimmer 
Co.  v.  Stevens,  137  U.  S.  433,  11  S.  Ct.  154,  34  L.  ed.  719;  Magin  v. 
Karle,  150  U.  S.  392,  14  S.  Ct.  155,  37  L.  ed.  1118;  Ransom  v.  Mayor, 
1  Fish.  264,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,573;  Conover  v.  Roach,  4  Fish.  16,  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  3125;  Union  Gas  Co.  v.  Doak,  88  Fed.  89. 

59  Rubber-Tip  Pencil  Co.  v.  Howard,  20  Wall.  507,  22  L.  ed.  410; 
Phillips  v.  Detroit,  111  U.  S.  608,  4  S.  Ct.  583,  28  L.  ed.  532;  Farmers' 
Mfg.  Co.  v.  Spruks  Mfg.  Co.,  119  Fed.  594. 

60  Smith  v.  Nichols,  21  Wall.  118,  22  L.  ed.  566;  Packing  Co.  v. 
Provision  Cos.,  105  U.  S.  572,  26  L.  ed.  1172;  Pitts  v.  Hall,  2  Blatchf. 
234,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,192. 

61  Collar  Co.  v.  Van  Dusen,  23  Wall.  563,  23  L.  ed.  128;  Rechen- 
dorfer  v.  Faber,  92  U.  S.  356,  23  L.  ed.  719;  King  v.  Gallun,  109  U. 
S.  101,  3  S.  Ct.  85,  27  L.  ed.  870;  Hollister  v.  Benedict  etc.  Mfg. 
Co.,  113  U.  S.  73,  5  S.  Ct.  717,  28  L.  ed.  901;  Weir  v.  Morden,  125  U. 
S.  108,  8  S.  Ct.  869,  31  L.  ed.  645;  Potts  v.  Creager,  155  U.  S.  608,  15 
S.  Ct.  194,  39  L.  ed.  275;  Dodge  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Ohio  etc.  Works,  101 
Fed.  584. 

62  Clark  Thread  Co.  v.  Williamantic  Linen  Co.,  140  U.  S.  489,  11 
S.  Ct.  846,  35  L.  ed.  521;  Wicke  v.  Ostrum,  103  U.  S.  469,  26  L.  ed. 
409;  Morley  Co.  v.  Lancaster,  23  Fed.  344;  Campbell  Press  Co.  v. 
Duplex  Press  Co.,  86  Fed.  320. 

63  Gorham  Co.  v.  White,  14  Wall.  524,  20  L.  ed.  731;  Wood  v. 
Dolbey,  19  Blatchf.  215.  7  Fed.  477;  Smith  v.  Stewart,  55  Fed.  482; 
Pelouze  Scale  etc.  Co.  v.  American  Cutlery  Co.,  102  Fed.  916;  Bevin 


185  Patents  and  Copyrights.     Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  8 

consideration  in  determining  the  validity  of  such  a  patent.64 
Patents  for  designs,  like  other  patents,  must  show  originality 
and  inventive  faculty.63 

The  protection  accorded  by  Congress  under  this  clause  is 
exclusively  to  the  inventor;66  by  his  patent  he  acquires  prop- 
erty in  his  invention  which  is  ec titled  to  protection  to  the  same 
extent  as  any  other  property,67  and  as  capable  of  sale  or  as- 
signment.68 Accordingly,  no  one  is  entitled  to  a  patent  un- 
less he  is  the  inventor  or  can  show  a  legal  title  derived  from  the 
inventor,  or  by  operation  of  law.69  The  right  of  a  patentee 
under  his  letters  patent  is  exclusive  of  the  government  as  well 
as  all  others.70  and,  like  any  other  property,  cannot  be  ap- 
propriated without  compensation.71  A  patent  is  to  be  con- 
strued liberally,  "so  as  to  promote  the  progress  of  the  useful 
arts,"72  and  the  object  of  the  patent  laws  should  not  be  de- 
feated by  too  strict  an  adherence  to  the  letter  of  the  statute,73 

Bros.  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Starr  Bros.  Bell  Co.,  114  Fed.  362;  Eaton  v.  Lewis, 
115  Fed.  635. 

64  Smith  v.  Whitman  Co.,  148  U.  S.  678,  13  S.  Ct.  770,  37  L.  ed. 
606;  Untermeyer  v.  Freund,  37  Fed.  345. 

65  Smith  v.  Whitman  Co..  148  IT.  S.  679,  13  S.  Ct.  770,  37  L.  ed. 
606;  Eclipse  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Holland,  62  Fed.  468;  Sagendorph  v.  Hughes, 
95  Fed.  479;  Perry  v.  Haskins,  111  Fed.  1002. 

66  In  re  Brosnahan,  18  Fed.  62. 

67  Seymour  v.  Osborne,  11  Wall.  533,  20  L.  ed.  33;  Consolidated 
Fruit  Jar  Co.  v.  Wright,  94  U.  S.  96,  24  L.  ed.  68;  Cammeyer  v.  New- 
ton, 94  U.  S.  226,  24  L.  ed.  72. 

68  Ager  v.  Murray,  105  TJ.  S.  128,  26  L.  ed.  942. 

6»  Agawam  Co.  v.  Jordan,  7  Wall.  602,  19  L.  ed.  177;  Standard 
etc.  Co.  v.  Peters  etc.  Co.,  77  Fed.  645. 

70  Hollister  v.  Benedict  etc.  Mfg.  Co.,  113  U.  S.  67,  5  S.  Ct.  717,  28 
L.  ed.  901;  Belknap  v.  Schild,  161  TJ.  S.  16,  16  S.  Ct.  443,  40  L.  ed. 
599. 

71  United  States  v.  Burns,  12  Wall.  252,  20  L.  ed.  388;  James 
v.  Campbell,  104  U.  S.  358,  26  L.  ed.  786;  United  States  v.  Palmer, 
128  U.  S.  271,  9  S.  Ct.  104,  32  L.  ed.  442;  Belknap  v.  Schild,  161  U. 
S.  16,  16  S.  Ct.  443,  40  L.  ed.  599;  Campbell  v.  James,  17  Blatehf.  54, 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  2361;  Head  v.  Porter,  48  Fed.  487;  McKeever  v.  United 
States,  14  Ct.  of  CI.  396. 

73  Winans  v.  Dunsmead,  15  How.  341,  14  L.  ed.  717. 

73  Hogg  v.  Emerson,  6  How.  480,  12  L.  ed.  505;  Topliff  v.  Topliff, 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  8    Patents  and  Copyrights.  186 

especially  where  an  invention  is  a  pioneer  in  the  particular 
art  or  science,74  and  while  the  courts  should  hesitate  to  give 
a  construction  unjust  to  the  public  and  individuals,75  yet  a 
patent  law  which  is  constitutional  must  be  enforced  without  re- 
gard to  considerations  of  policy  or  justice.76 

Patent  laws  cannot  displace  the  police  powers  of  the  states,77 
and  the  right  to  manufacture  and  sell  must  be  exercised  in 
compliance  with  state  laws.78  So  a  patent  for  a  plan  for  con- 
structing and  drawing  lotteries  does  not  authorize  the  establish- 
ment of  a  lottery  contrary  to  state  laws,79  nor  does  a  patent 
for  a  medicine  confer  a  right  to  prescribe  the  medicine.80 
Vendors  of  patented  articles  are  bound  to  observe  state  Sunday 
laws.81  The  fact  that  a  telephone  is  patented  does  not  prevent 
a  state  from  requiring  the  company  using  it  to  establish  uni- 
form rates.82 

145  U.  S.  171,  12  S.  Ct.  825,  36  L.  ed.  658;  Keystone  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Adams,  151  U.  S.  145,  14  S.  Ct.  295,  38  L.  ed.  103;  McMichael  etc. 
Co.  v.  Stafford,  105  Fed.  380. 

74  Morley  Machine  Co.  v.  Lancaster,  129  TJ.  S.  286,  9  S.  Ct.  299, 
32  L.  ed.  715;  Sessions  v.  Eomadka,  145  IT.  S.  45,  121  S.  Ct.  799,  36 
L.  ed.  609;  Boyer  v.  Coupe,  146  U.  S.  531,  13  S.  Ct.  166,  36  L.  ed. 
1073;  The  Koller  Mill  Patent,  156  TJ.  S.  269,  15  S.  Ct.  333,  39  L.  ed. 
417;  Lehigh  Valley  E.  E.  v.  Kearney,  158  TJ.  S.  476,  15  S.  Ct.  871, 
39  L.  ed.  1055. 

70  Wilson  v.  Bonsseau,  4  How.  680,  11  L.  ed.  1141. 

73  Bloomer  v.  Stolley,  5  McLean,  158,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1559. 

77  Webber  v.  Virginia,  103  U.  S.  347,  26  L.  ed.  565;  In  re  Brosna- 
han,  4  McCrary,  7,  18  Fed.  65;  Eeeves  v.  Corning,  51  Fed.  786;  Mason 
v.  McLood,  57  Kan.  109,  57  Am.  St.  Eep.  329,  45  Pac.  76,  41  L.  E. 
A.   549. 

76  Patterson  v.  Kentucky,  97  U.  S.  505,  24  L.  ed.  1115. 

79  Vaunini  v.  Paine,  1  Harr.  65. 

80  Jordan  v.  Dayton,  4  Ohio,  294. 

Si  People  v.  Ru?sel,  49  Mich.  619,  43  Am.  Eep.  479,  14  NVW.  369. 
82  State  v.   Telegraph  Co.,  47  Fed.   635;   Central  etc.   Ted.   Co.  v. 
Bradbury,  106  Ind.  9,  5  N.  E.  725. 


187  Infeeiok  Courts.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  9 

9.  To  constitute   tribunals  inferior   to  the   Supreme 
Court; 

Extent  of  Power. 

Under  this  clause  Congress  may  establish  such  inferior  courts 
as  it  sees  fit.1  The  creation  of  such  courts  by  Congress  does 
not,  ipso  facto,  invest  them  with  the  judicial  power  delegated 
by  the  constitution;2  legislation  is  necessary  to  give  them  judi- 
cial power,3  and  the  distribution  of  this  power  is  entirely  within 
the  control  of  Congress  except  in  the  cases  especially  enumerated 
in  the   constitution.4 

Jurisdiction  may  be  conferred  in  all  cases  involving  questions 
to  which  the  constitution  extends  judicial  power  although  other 
questions  may  be  involved  therein,5  and,  in  some  instances, 
jurisdiction  may  be  withdrawn  even  in  pending  cases.6  It 
rests  entirely  with  Congress  to  determine  at  what  time,  and 
under  what  conditions,  the  power  may  be  invoked.7  State 
courts  are  not  inferior  courts  within  the  meaning  of  this 
clause;8  the  courts  contemplated  are  those  only  which  exist  un- 
der the  constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States,9  and  Con- 

i  Stuart  v.  Laird,  1  Cr.  309,  2  L.  ed.  115;  United  States  v.  Haynes, 
29  Fed.  696,  697. 

2  Turner  v.  Bank  of  North  America,  4  Dall.  10,  1  L.  ed.  718; 
Sheldon  v.  Sill,  8  How.  449,  12  L.  ed.  1147;  In  re  Sewing  Machine 
Cos.,  18  Wall.  557,  21  L.  ed.  914;  United  States  v.  New  Bedford  Br., 
1  Wood.  &  M.  431,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,867;  In  re  Cilley,  58  Fed.  978. 

3  McClung  v.  Silliman,  6  Wheat.  604,  5  L.  ed.  840;  In  re  Barry, 
]36  U.  S.  609,  note,  42  Fed.  122,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1059;  Cary  v.  Curtis, 
3  How.  245,  11  L.  ed.  576;  Fountain  v.  Revenel,  17  How.  384,  15  L. 
ed.  80. 

4  Johnson  Co.  v.  Wharton,  152  U.  S.  260,  14  S.  Ct.  152,  38  L.  ed. 
429. 

5  Osborne  v.  United  States  Bank,  9  Wheat.  823,  6  L.  ed.  204. 

6  Ex  parte  Terger,  8  Wall.  104,  19  L.  ed.  332;  In  re  Hall,  167  U. 
S.  42,  17  S.  Ct.  725,  42  L.  ed.  69. 

7  Gaines  v.  Fuentes,  92  U.  S.  18,  23  L.  ed.  524;  Whelan  v.  Railroad 
Co.,  35  Fed.  859. 

8  Ex  parte  Bollman,  4  Cr.  97,  2  L.  ed.  554. 

9  Houston  v.  Moore,  5  Wheat.  27,  5  L.  ed.  19. 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  9  Inferior  Courts.  188 

gress  cannot  authoritatively  confer  jurisdiction  upon  state 
courts.10  Territorial  courts  are  not  inferior  courts  which  Con- 
gress may  establish  under  this  clause;11  such  courts  are  created 
under  the  power  to  make  all  needful  rules  and  regulations  re- 
specting territories.12  The  necessity  for  legislation  to  confer 
jurisdiction  applies  to  criminal  cases;  the  federal  courts  have 
no  common-law  jurisdiction  of  offenses.13  The  power  to  es- 
tablish courts  and  invest  them  with  jurisdiction  affords  no  pre- 
text for  the  abrogation  of  established  rules  of  property;14  hence, 
the  decision  of  the  supreme  court  of  a  state,  as  a  rule  of  prop- 
erty, is  binding  on  the  federal  courts.15 

Powers  of  States. 


Federal  and  state  courts  are  distinct  and  independent  of 
each  other  in  matters  within  their  respective  jurisdictions.16 
State  laws  cannot  confer  jurisdiction  upon  federal  courts,17 
or  in  any  way  affect  the  jurisdiction  conferred  by  Congress.18 

iO  Stearns  v.  United  States,  2  Paine,  308,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,341; 
Morgan  v.  Dudley,  18  B.  Mon.  714,  68  Am.  Dec.  739;  Davidson  v. 
Champlin,  7  Conn.  248;  Eushworth  v.  Judges,  58  N.  J.  L.  98,  32  Atl. 
744. 

li   American  Ins.  Co.  v.  356  Bales  of  Cotton,  1  Pet.  546,  7  L.  ed.  242. 

12  United  States  v.  C.  O.  &  G.  E.  E.,  3  Okla.  451,  41  Pac.  745;  In 
re  Dana,  68  Fed.  901.* 

13  Ex  parte  Bollman,  4  Cr.  93,  2  L.  ed.  554;  United  States  v.  Wilt- 
berger,  5  Wheat.  98,  5  L.  ed.  37;  Jones  v.  United  States,  137  U.  S. 
211,  11  S.  Ct.  80,  34  L.  ed.  691;  Manchester  v.  Massachusetts,  139 
U.  S.  262,  11  S.  Ct.  559,  35  L.  ed.  159. 

14  Suydam  v.  Williamson,  24  How.  433,  16  L.  ed.  742. 

15  Jackson  v.  Chew,  12  Wheat.  162,  6  L.  ed.  583;  Henderson  v. 
Griffin,  5  Pet.  155,  8  L.  ed.  79;  Van  Eensselaer  v.  Kearney,  11  How. 
318,  13  L.  ed.  703;  Beauregard  v.  New  Orleans,  18  How.  502,  15  L. 
ed.  469;  Barrett  v.  Holmes,  102  U.  S.  655,  26  L.  ed.  291;  Forsyth  v. 
Hammond,  166  U.  S.  519,  17  S.  Ct.  670,  41  L.  ed.  1095. 

10  Taylor  v.  Carryl,  20  How.  597,  15  L.  ed.  1028;  Euggles  v. 
Simonton,  3  Biss.  329,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,120;  Gates  v.  Bucki,  53  Fed. 
966. 

17  Steamboat  Orleans  v.  Phoebus,  11  Pet.  184,  9  L.  ed.  677;  Insur- 
ance Co.  v.  Morse,  20  Wall.  453,  22  L.  ed.  365;  Southern  Pac.  Co.  v. 
Denton,  146  U.  S.  209,  13  S.  Ct.  44,  36  L.  ed.  942. 

is  United  States  v.  Peters,  5  Cr.  138,  3  L.  ed.  53;  Beers  v.  Haugh- 


*See  an.  IV,  §  3,  el.  2. 


189  Inferior  Courts.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  9 

Forms  of  action  and  modes  of  proceeding  in  federal  courts  are 
matters  for  regulation  by  Congress/9  and  when  Congress  has 
prescribed  definite  rules  in  matters  of  practice  they  are,  to  that 
extent,  exclusive  of  state  legislation  upon  the  same  matter.20 

ton,  9  Pet.  359,  9  L.  ed.  145;  Toland  v.  Spragne,  12  Pet.  330,  9  L.  ed. 
1093;  Chicot  Co.  v.  Sherwood,  148  U.  S.  534,  13  S.  Ct.  695,  37  L. 
ed.  546. 

19  Kearney  v.  Farmers'  etc.  Bank,  16  Pet.  94,  10  L.  ed.  897. 

20  Southern  Pac.  Co.  v.  Denton,  146  U.  S.  209,  13  S.  Ct.  44,  36  L. 
ed.  942. 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  10  Piracy.  190 

10.  To  define  and  punish  piracies  and  felonies  commit- 
ted on  the  high  seas,  and  offenses  against  the  law  of 
nations; 

Definition. 

To  define  is  to  enumerate  the  crimes  which  shall  constitute 
piracy,1  but  while  Congress  is  given  power  to  thus  define  piracy, 
it  need  not  do  so,  in  terms;  reference  to  the  law  of  nations 
for  a  definition  is  sufficient.2  The  act  of  Congress  of  April 
30,  1890,  gives  to  federal  courts  power  to  punish  the  offense  of 
murder  or  robbery  committed  on  board  a  foreign  vessel  by  a 
citizen  of  the  United  States;  on  board  a  United  States  vessel 
by  a  foreigner;  by  a  citizen  or  foreigner  on  board  a  piratical 
vessel.3 

A  piratical  vessel  is  one  which  has  thrown  off  its  national 
character,4  and  holds  no  commission  from  a  sovereign  state.5 
Piracy  committed  by  such  a  vessel,  even  against  a  foreign  ves- 
sel, is  punishable  in  the  United  States  courts.6  The  crime  is 
one  against  all  nations  including  the  United  States;7  pirates 
are  the  common  enemies  of  mankind.8  Eobbery  or  forcible 
depredation  on  the  sea,  animus  furandi,  is  piracy.9  The  word 
"piratical"  in  the  act  of  1819  imports  an  aggression  unauthor- 
ized by  the  law  of  nations,  hostile  in  its  character,  wanton 
and  criminal  in  its  commission,  and  without  sanction  from  any 
foreign  power.10     Thus  maritime  warfare  of  unrecognized  rebels 

1  United  States  v.  Smith,  5  Wheat.  158,  5  L.  ed.  57. 

2  United  States  v.  Smith,  5  Wheat.  158,  5  L.  ed.  57;  United  States 
v.  Pirates,  5  Wheat.  197,  5  L.  ed.  64;  and  see  Crapo  v.  Kelly,  16  Wall. 
629,  21  L.   ed.  438. 

3  United  States  v.  Holmes,  5  Wheat.  417,  5  L.  ed.  122. 

4  United  States  v.  Pirates,  5  Wheat.  192,  5  L.  ed.  64. 

5  Davison  v.  Sealskins,  2  Paine,  333,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,661. 

6  United  States  v.  Klintock,  5  Wheat.  151,  5  L.  ed.  557. 

7  Case  of  Jose  Ferreira  dos  Santos,  2  Brock.  507,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
4016. 

8  The  Marianna  Flora,  11  Wheat.  40,  6  L.  ed.  405. 

9  United  States  v.  Smith,  5  Wheat.  193,  5  L.  ed.  57;  United  States 
v.  Pirates,  5  Wheat.  197,  5  L.  ed.  64. 

10  United  States  v.  The  M.alek  Adhel,  2  How.  232,  11  L.  ed.  239. 


191  Piracy.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  10 

is  piratical.11  Actual  plunder  is  not  necessary;11*  any  molesta- 
tation  of  third  parties  by  insurgent  vessels  before  the  recogni- 
tion of  belligerency  constitutes  piracy.12  Slave  trade,  not  be- 
ing contrary  to  the  law  of  nations,  is  not  piracy;13  but,  on  the 
other  hand,  native  Africans  unlawfully  kidnaped  cannot  be 
deemed  pirates  if  they  take  possession  of  the  vessel  to  regain 
their  liberty.14 

Congress  may  provide  for  the  punishment  of  mutiny,15  and 
of  conspiracy  to  burn  a  ship.16 

A  statute  punishing  the  counterfeiting  of  foreign  securities 
is  valid  as  punishing  an  offense  against  the  law  of  nations.17 

High  Seas. 


According  to  the  decisions  of  the  English  common-law  courts, 
"high  seas"  means  that  portion  of  the  sea  which  washes  the  open 
coast.18  A  vessel  lying  in  an  open  roadstead  of  a  foreign  coun- 
try is  upon  the  high  seas.19  The  term  is  used  in  contradistinc- 
tion to  landlocked  tidewaters,20  and  means  without  the  limits 
of  any  port.21     So  a  vessel  upon  a  navigable  river  of  a  foreign 

11  The  Ambrose  Light,  25  Fed.  416;  United  States  v.  Smith,  27 
Fed.  Cas.  1135. 

lia  United  States  v.  The  Malek  Adhel,  2  How.  232,  11  L.  ed.  239. 

12  United  States  v.  The  Three  Friends,  167  U.  S.  64,  17  S.  Ct.  495, 
41  L.  ed.  897. 

13  The  Antelope,  10  Wheat.  121,  6  L.  ed.  268. 

14  United  States  v.  The  Amistad,  15  Pet.  593,  10  L.  ed.  826. 

15  United  States  v.  Kelly,  11  Wheat.  418,  6  L.  ed.  508;  United 
States  v.  Seagrist,  4  Blatchf.  422,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,245;  United  States 
v.  Almeida,  24  Fed.  Cas.  776;  United  States  v.  Huff,  13  Fed.  635. 

16  United  States  v.  Cole,  5  McLean,  513,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,832. 

17  United  States  v.  Arjona,  120  U.  S.  488,  7  S.  Ct.  628,  30  L.  ed. 
72S. 

18  Waring  v.  Clarke,  5  How.  453,  12  L.  ed.  226;  Morgan  v.  Naga- 
dish,  40  La.  Ann.  252,  3  South.  639;  People  v.  Supervisors,  73  N.  Y. 
397. 

19  United  States  v.  Pirates,  5  Wheat.  200,  5  L.  ed.  64. 

20  United  States  v.  Wilson,  3  Blatchf.  439,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,731. 

21  The  Harriet,  1  Story,  260,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6099;  United  States  v. 
Grush,  5  Mason,  290,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,268. 


Art  I,  §  8,  CI.  10  Piracy.  192 

nation  is  not  upon  the  "high  seas."22    The  Great  Lakes  are  not 
"high  seas"  within  the  act  punishing  the  burning  of  vessels.23 

22  United  States  v.  Wiltberger,  5  Wheat.  104,  5  L.  ed.  37;  Ex  part* 
Byers,  32  Fed.  406;  People  v.  Tyler,  7  Mich.  216,  74  Am.  Dec.  711. 

23  Henry  Miller's  Case,  Brown  Adm.  157,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9558. 


193  War.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  11 

11.  To  declare  war,  grant  letters  of  marque  and  rep- 
risal, and  make  rules  concerning  captures  on  land  and 
water; 

What  Constitutes  War. 

War  is  the  external  contention,  by  force,  between  some  of 
the  members  of  two  nations,  authorized  by  the  legitimate  pow- 
ers ;*  that  state  in  which  a  nation  prosecutes  its  right  by  force.2 
It  may  be  general  or  limited,3  and  may  exist  where  one  bellig- 
erent claims  sovereign  rights  against  the  other;  so  where  in- 
surrection becomes,  by  numbers  and  power,  organized  rebellion, 
it  is  civil  war,  in  which  both  parties  are  conceded  belligerent 
rights.4  The  war  of  the  Eebellion  was  conducted  as  if  it  were 
with  a  foreign  enemy,  and  important  rights  were  conceded  to 
the  insurgent  states,5  and  international  law  was  applied  to 
questions  arising  out  of  that  war.6  The  relations  between  the 
United  States  and  France  in  1800  constituted  limited  hostilities, 
amounting  to  a  state  of  war.7 

Declaration. 

A  formal  declaration  is  unnecessary;  a  recognition  of  a  state 
of  war  by  engaging  in  acts  of  hostility  is  sufficient.8     The  Presi- 

1  Bas  v.  Tingy,  4  Dall.  40,  1  L.  ed.  731. 

2  Prize  Cases.  2  Black,  666,  667,  17  L.  ed.  459;  Miller  v.  United 
States,  11  Wall.  306,  20  L.  ed.  135. 

3  Bas  v.  Tingy,  4  Dall.  43,  1  L.  ed.  731. 

4  Prize  Cases,  2  Black,  666,  667,  17  L.  ed.  459. 

5  Coppell  v.  Hall,  7  Wall.  554,  19  L.  ed.  244;  Mutual  etc.  Co.  v. 
Hillyard,  37  N.  J.  L.  489. 

c  Ford  v.  Surget,  97  U.  S.  604,  24  L.  ed.  1018;  Brown  v.  Hiatt,  1 
Dill.  381,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2011;  Phillips  v.  Hatch,  1  Dill.  576,  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  11,094. 

7  Bas  v.  Tingy,  4  Dall.  39-46,  1  L.  ed.  731;  Talbot  v.  Seeman,  1  Cr. 
33,  2  L.  ed.  15;  Clayton  v.  The  Harmony,  1  Pet.  Adm.  78,  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  2871. 

8  Bas  v.  Tingy,  4  Dall.  39,  1  L.  ed.  731;  Talbot  v.  Seeman,  1  Cr. 
28,  2  L.  ed.  15;  The  Panama,  176  U.  S.  535,  20  S.  Ct.  480,  44  L.  ed. 
577;  Griswold  v.  Waddington,  16  Johns.  449. 

Notes  on  Constitution — 13 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  11  Wab.  194 

dent  has  power  to  thus-recognize  the  existence  of  a  state  of  war.9 
Such  was  the  effect  of  the  President's  blockade  proclamation  of 
April  19,  1861,  and  the  act  of  Congress  of  July  13,  1861  ;10 
in  fact,  the  President's  proclamations  marked  the  beginning  of 
the  war  of  the  Rebellion.11  Acts  of  one  nation  may  be  deemed 
by  another  to  be  tantamount  to  a  declaration  of  war  in  advance 
of  any  formal  action  by  either.12 

Power  Conferred. 


Congress  alone  has  power  to  formally  declare  war,13  but 
where  the  President  finds  an  actual  state  of  war  existing  he 
may  take  the  necessary  steps  in  the  absence  of  congressional 
action.14  The  power  was  conferred  upon  Congress,  not  for 
purposes  of  aggression  or  aggrandizement,  but  to  enable  the 
general  government  to  vindicate  its  own  rights  and  those  of 
its  citizens,15  and  it  can  never  be  presumed  that  a  war  declared 
by  Congress  is  waged  for  purposes  of  conquest  or  the  acquisi- 
tion of  territory,16  although  the  power  carries  with  it  the  power 
to  acquire  territory  by  conquest.17  It  includes  the  authority 
to  use  other  means  besides  those  indicated  by  the  terms  of  the 
grant,18  and  contemplates  all  means  and  any  manner  in  which 

9  Prize  Cases,  2  Black,  668,  17  L.  ed.  459;  Matthews  v.  McStea,  91 
U.  S.  12. 

10  The  William  Bogaley,  5  Wall.  406,  407,  18  L.  ed.  583;  Matthews 
v.  McStea,  91  U.  S.  9,  23  L.  ed.  188;  Brown  v.  Hiatt,  1  Dill.  381, 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  2011;  Philips  v.  Hatch,  1  Dill.  576,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,094. 

11  Levy  v.  Stewart  11  Wall.  253,  20  L.  ed.  86;  The  Protector,  12 
Wall.  702,  20  L.  ed.  463. 

12  The  Pedro,   175  U.  S.  354,  20  S.  Ot.  138,  44  L.  ed.  195. 

13  Prize  Cases,  2  Black,  668,  17  L.  ed.  459;  Perkins  v.  Rogers,  35 
Ind.  144,  9  Am.  Eep.  654. 

14  Prize  Cases,  2  Black,  668-670,  17  L.  ed.  459;  The  Panama,  176 
TJ.  S.  535,  20  S.  Ct.  480,  44  L.  ed.  577. 

15  Fleming  v.  Page,  9  How.  614,  13  L.  ed.  276. 

io  Fleming  v.  Page,  9  How.  614,  13  L.  ed.  276;  United  States  v. 
Castillero,  2  Black,  355,  17  L.  ed.  360;  American  Ins.  Co.  v.  Cotton, 
1  Pet.  542,  7  L.  ed.  242;  Stewart  v.  Kahn,  11  Wall.  507,  20  L.  ed.  176. 

17  Sere  v.  Pitot,  6  Cr.  332,  3  L.  ed.  240;  Stewart  v.  Kahn,  11  Wall. 
507,  20  L.  ed.  176;  Fleming  v.  Page,  9  How.  614,  13  L.  ed.  276. 

is  Prize  Cases,  2  Black,  670,  17  L.  ed.  459. 


195  Was.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  11 

war  may  be  legitimately  prosecuted.19  All  acts  tending  to  les- 
sen an  adversary's  strength  are  lawful.20 

The  confiscation  of  enemies'  property  may  be  provided  for 
by  Congress,21  but  a  declaration  of  war  does  not,  ipso  facto, 
work  a  confiscation  of  such  property;22  positive  law  authorizing 
it  is  necessary,23  and  the  power  to  pass  such  a  law  is  exclu- 
sively in  Congress.24  The  act  of  Congress  emancipating  the 
slaves  of  those  aiding  in  rebellion  was  valid  under  this  power.25 

The  authority  conferred  by  this  clause  extends  to  all  legisla- 
tion necessary  to  the  prosecution  of  the  war  with  vigor  and  suc- 
cess.26 It  is  not  limited  to  operations  in  the  field  and  the  dis- 
persion of  the  enemy,  but  carries  with  it  the  power  to  prosecute 
war  to  a  termination,27   and  to  guard  against  its  renewal.28 

19  Miller  v.  United  States,  11  Wall.  305,  20  L.  ed.  135;  Tyler  v. 
Defrees,  11  Wall.  345,  20  L.  ed.  161. 

20  Young  v.  United  States,  97  U.  S.  60,  24  L.  ed.  992;  Ford  v. 
Surget,  97  U.  S.  605,  24  L.  ed.  1018. 

21  Miller  v.  United  States,  11  Wall.  305,  20  L.  ed.  135;  Tyler  v. 
Defrees,  11  Wall.  345,  20  L.  ed.  161;  Mrs.  Alexander's  Cotton,  2 
Wall.  419,  17  L.  ed.  915;  The  Ned,  1  Blatchf.  Pr.  Cas.  119,  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  10,078. 

22  Brown  v.  Brown,  8  Cr.  123,  3  L.  ed.  504;  Conrad  v.  Waples,  96 
U.  S.  284,  24  L.  ed.  721;  Briggs  v.  United  States,  143  U.  S.  356,  12 
S.    Ct.   395,    36   L.    ed.    180. 

23  Conrad  v.  Waples,  96  U.  S.  284,  24  L.  ed.  721;  Briggs  v.  United 
States,  143  U.  S.  356,  12  S.  Ct.  395,  36  L.  ed.  180;  United  States  v. 
Stevenson,  3  Ben.  120,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,396;  United  States  v.  Shares 
of  Stock,  5  Blatchf.  237,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,961;  Wagner  v.  The  Juanita, 
Newb.  358,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,039;  McVeigh  v.  Bank,  26  Gratt.  200; 
Hedges  v.  Price,  2  W.  Va.  231,  94  Am.  Dec.  516. 

24  Brown  v.  United  States,  8  Cr.  123,  3  L.  ed.  504;  The  Parkhill, 
18  Fed.  Cas.  1197;  Britton  v.  Butler,  9  Blatchf.  462,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
1903. 

25  Buie  v.  Parker,  63  N.  C.  131;  Jacoway  v.  Denton,  25  Ark.  625. 

26  Ex  parte  Milligan,  4  Wall.  139,  18  L.  ed.  281. 

27  Legal  Tender  Cases,  12  Wall.  457,  20  L.  ed.  287;  Metropolitan 
Bank  v.  Van  Dyck,  27  N.  Y.  400;  Kneedler  v.  Lane,  45  Pa.  St.  238. 

28  Stewnrt  v.  Kahn,  11  Wall.  507,  20  L.  ed.  176;  White  v.  Hart, 
13  Wall.  646,  20  L.  ed.  685;  Baymond  v.  Thomas,  91  U.  S.  715,  23  L. 
ed.  434. 


Art.  I3  §  8,  CI.  11  War.  196 

To  this  end  Congress  may  call  the  requisite  forces  into  service,29 
and  provide  for  the  transportation  of  troops  through  all  parts 
of  the  Union  by  the  most  expeditious  routes;30  may  prohibit! 
intercourse;31  may  relax  the  ordinary  rules  of  war  by  permitting 
a  limited  commercial  intercourse  with  the  enemy  upon  such 
conditions  as  it  sees  fit.32  So,  also,  Congress  may  suspend  stat- 
utes of  limitations  during  the  existence  of  a  rebellion.33 

Letters  of  Marque. 

Until  Congress  passes  laws  upon  the  subject  of  war  and  re- 
prisals, no  private  citizen  can  enforce  such  rights,34  and  letters 
are  strictly  limited  by  the  law  under  which  they  are  issued  and 
the  instructions  of  the  executive.35  Letters  obtained  by  fraud 
are  inoperative.35*  Congress  may  commission  privateers  to» 
make  captures  within  United  States  waters  as  well  as  upon  the 
high  seas.36. 

Rules  Concerning  Captures. 

The  power  to  make  these  rules  is  not  limited  to  captures  on 
the  high  seas  or  on  foreign  territory;  it  extends  to  captures 
within  the  United  States.37  It  is  for  Congress  to  determine 
what  shall  be  subject  to  capture.38  The  power  of  Congress 
in  respect  to  prizes  is  plenary,39  and  no  one  can  have  any  in- 
terest in  prizes  captured  except  by  permission  of  Congress.40 

29  Kneedler  v.  Lane,  45  Pa.  St.  238. 

30  Crandall  v.  Nevada,  6  Wall.  36,  18  L.  ed.  745. 

31  Matthews  v.  MoStea,  91  XL  S.  13,  23  L.  ed.  188;  Phelps  v. 
Bowles,  19  Wend.  547. 

32  Hamilton  v.  Dillin,  21  Wall.  97,  22  L.  ed.  528. 

33  Stewart  v.  Kahn,  11  Wall.  507,  20  L.  ed.  176;  May-field  v.  Rich- 
ards, 115  U.  S.  142,  5  S.  Ct.  1190,  29  L.  ed.  334. 

34  Brown  v.  United  States,  8  Cr.  153,  3  L.  ed.  504. 

35  The  Thomas  Gibbons,  8  Cr.  428,  3  L.  ed.  610. 
3r.a  The  Experiment,  8  Wheat.  264,  5  L.  ed.  612. 

36  The  Joseph,  8  Cr.  455,  456,  3  L.  ed.  621. 

37  Brown  v.  United  States,  8  Cr.  153,  3  L.  ed.  504. 

38  Lamar  v.  Browne,  92  U.  S.  187,  23  L.  ed.  650. 

39  The  Hampton,  5  Wall.  376,  18  L.  ed.  646. 

*"  The  Siren,  13  Wall.  393,  20  L.  ed.  505;  United  States  v.  Steever, 
113  U.  S.  754,  5  S.  Ct.  769,  28  L.  ed.  1133. 


197  Army.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  12 

12.  To  raise  and  support  armies,  but  no  appropriation 
of  money  to  that  use  shall  be  for  a  longer  term  than  two 
years; 

Extent  of  Power. 

The  power  of  Congress  under  this  clause  is  plenary  and  ex- 
clusive/ and  includes  all  the  means  by  which  armies  can  be 
raised,  whether  by  voluntary  enlistment  or  compulsory  draft.2 
An  individual  may  be  required  to  perform  military  duty  with- 
out his  consent  if  the  demand  is  made  by  a  proper  exercise 
of  the  national  will,3  and  minors  may  be  enlisted  without  the 
consent  of  their  parents.4  The  age  at  which  the  soldier  shall 
be  received,  the  period  for  which  he  shall  serve,5  and  the  time 
when  his  service  shall  be  deemed  to  commence,  are  matters 
for  Congress  to  determine.6 

The  power  includes  the  provision  of  necessary  officers,  equip- 
ments and  supplies  and  the  establishment  of  military  acade- 
mies,7 and  the  making  of  such  orders  and  regulations  as  may 
be  necessary  to  prevent  an  evasion  of  duty  by  those  liable  to 
service.8  Congress  has  full  power  to  legislate  in  the  matter 
of  the  increase  and  reduction  of  the  army.9 

1  Tarble's  Case,  13  Wall.  408,  20  L.  ed.  597;  Ferguson  v.  Landram, 
1  Bush,  548;  Ex  parte  Bright,  1  Utah,  155. 

2  Tartle's  Case,  13  Wall.  408,  20  L.  ed.  597;  Kneedler  v.  Lane,  45 
Pa.  St.  238;  In  re  Griner,  23  Wis.  423;  and  see  Ex  parte  Coupland, 
26  Tex.  386. 

3  United  States  v.  Bainbridge,  1  Mason,  71,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,497; 
Ex  parte  Coupland,  26  Tex.  394. 

4  United  States  v.  Bainbridge,  1  Mason,  71,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,497; 
Ex  parte  Brown,  5  Cr.  C.  C.  554,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1972;  United  States 
v.  Stewart,  Crabbe,  205,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,400;  Commonwealth  v. 
Murray,  4  Binn.  487,  5  Am.  Dee.  412;  Commonwealth  v.  Barker,  5 
Binn.  423;  Roberts'  Case,  2  Hall  L.  J.  192;  Commonwealth  v.  Gam- 
ble, 11  Serg.  &  R.  94. 

5  Tarble's  Case,  13  Wall.  408,  20  L.  ed.  597. 

6  Kneedler  v.  Lane,  45  Pa.   St.   238. 

7  United  States  v.  Rhodes,  1  Abb.  U.  S.  50,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,151. 

8  Allen  v.  Colby,  45  N.  H.  544. 

9  Street  v.  United  States,  133  U.  S.  307,  10  S.  Ct.  309,  33  L.  ed. 
631. 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  12  Army.  198 

Power  of  States. 

The  power  under  this  clause  may  be  exercised  by  Congress 
without  question  from  any  state  authority.10  In  the  matter 
of  a  national  conscription  the  states  have  no  authority  what- 
ever, and  any  aid  rendered  by  them  would  be  simply  as  vol- 
unteers;11 but  where  Congress  provides  for  a  draft,  a  state 
may  give  a  bounty  to  those  who  volunteer.12  This  power  takes 
precedence  over  the  power  of  the  state  over  its  militia.13 

State  courts  cannot  discharge  from  enlistments  upon  habeas 
corpus,  although  such  enlistments  were  illegal.14  In  such  cases 
habeas  corpus  must  be  addressed  to  United  States  courts;15 
state  courts  have  no  jurisdiction  to  inquire  into  the  illegality 
of  an  enlistment.16 

io  Tarble's  Case,  13  Wall.  408,  20  L.  ed.  597. 

11   Booth  v.  Woodbury,  32  Conn.  118. 

1.2  Booth  v.  Woodbury,  32  Conn.  118;  Taylor  v.  Thompson,  42  G-a.  9; 
Ooffman  v.  Keightly,  24  Ind.  509;  Board  v.  Bearse,  25  Ind.  110; 
Winchester  v.  Corinna,  55  Me.  9;  Wilson  v.  Burkman,  13  Minn.  441; 
Comer  v.  Folsom,  13  Minn.  219;  State  v.  Demarest,  32  N.  J.  528; 
State  v.  Ja«kson,  31  N.  J.  189;  Speer  v.  Directors,  50  Pa.  St.  150; 
Ahl  v.  Gleim,  52  Pa.  St.  324. 

13  Kneedler  v.  Lane,  45  Pa.  St.  238. 

14  Tarble's  Case,  13  Wall.  397,  20  L.  ed.  597,  reversing  25  Wis.  390, 
3  Am.  Rep.  85;  In  re  Farrand,  1  Abb.  U.  S.  146,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4678; 
In  re  Keeler,  Hemp.  306,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7637;  In  re  Neill,  8  Blatchf. 
156,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,089;  In  re  Sprangler,  11  Micih.  298.  Contra, 
State  v.  Dimmick,  12  N.  H.  194,  37  Am.  Dec.  197;  In  re  Dobbs,  21 
How.  Pr.  68;  In  re  Barrett,  42  Barb.  479;  In  re  Reynolds,  6  Park.  Cr. 
Rep.  276,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,722. 

15  Ex  parte  Rielly,  2  Abb.  Pr.,  N.  S.,  334. 

J  6  Ex  parte  Yerger,  8  Wall.  85,  19  L.  ed.  332. 


199  Navy.  Ait.  I,  §  8,  CI.  13 

13.  To  provide  and  maintain  a  navy; 

This  grant  authorizes  Congress  to  buy  or  build  vessels  of 
war,  to  man,  arm  and  equip  them,  and  to  establish  naval 
academies.1  and  to  provide  for  the  punishment  of  desertion  and 
other  crimes,  and  make  all  needful  rules  for  the  government 
of  the  navy.2  Ships  of  war  of  a  friendly  foreign  power,  are 
not  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States  while 
in  our  ports,3  and  are  immune  from  United  States  laws  so  long 
as  they  respect  the  sovereignty  of  this  government.4 

i  United  States  v.  Bevans,  3  Wheat.  337,  4  L.  ed.  404;  United 
States  v.  Rhodes,  1  Abb.    U.  S.  50,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  19,151. 

2  Dynes  v.  Hoover,  20  How.  65;  Smith  v.  Whitney,  116  U.  S.  182, 
6  S.  Ct.  578,  29  L.  ed.  601. 

3  United  States  v.  Bevans,  3  Wheat.  390,  4  L.  ed.  404;  The  Ex- 
change v.  MeFaddon,  7  Gr.  145,  3  L.  ed.  287. 

4  The  Santissima  Trinidad,  1  Brock.  497,  Fed.  Gas.  No.  2563^ 
WaJley  v.  The  Liberty,  12  La.  101,  32  Am.  Dec.  115. 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  14  Military  Law.  200 

14.  To  make  rules  for  the  government  and  regulation 
of  the  land  and  naval  forces. 

The  power  of  Congress  to  provide  for  the  trial  and  punish- 
ment of  military  and  naval  offenses  by  courts-martial  may  be 
exercised  under  this  clause,  without  regard  to  the  Fifth  Amend- 
ment,1 and  it  cannot  be  abridged  or  in  any  way  affected  by  the 
states  through  either  their  legislative  or  judicial  departments.2 
Courts-martial  are  to  be  deemed  special  tribunals  constituted 
for  the  purpose  of  enforcing  the  rules  provided  under  this 
clause,  and  their  proceedings  within  the  scope  of  their  juris- 
diction cannot  be  controlled  or  reviewed  in  the  civil  courts  by 
prohibition  or  otherwise.3  It  is  only  where  a  court-martial  has 
no  jurisdiction  of  the  person  or  the  offense  that  the  civil  courts 
may  revise  or  nullify  its  proceedings.4 

The  power  to  establish  rules  implies,  necessarily,  the  power 
to  modify  or  repeal  or  to  create  anew.5  Army  and  navy  regu- 
lations authorized  by  Congress  have  the  force  of  law,6  and  the 
same  effect  is  given  to  department  regulations  by  congressional 
recognition.7 

1  Dynes  v.  Hoover,  20  How.  65,  15  L.  ed.  838;  Ex  parte  Reed,  100 
U.  S.  21,  25  L.  ed.  538;  Ex  parte  Mason,  105  U.  S.  701,  26  L.  ed.  1213; 
Johnson  v.  Sayre,  158  U.  S.  115,  15  S.  Ct.  776,  37  L.  ed.  914;  In  re 
Bogart,  2  Saw.  401,  Fed.  Gas.  No.  1596. 

2  In  re  Fair,  100  Fed.  149. 

3  Dynes  v.  Hoover,  20  How.  81,  15  L.  ed.  838;  Wales  v.  Whitney, 
114  U.  S.  570,  5  S.  Ct.  1050,  29  L.  ed.  277;  Smith  v.  Whitney,  116  U. 
S.  176,  6  S.  Ct.  570,  29  L.  ed.  601;  Johnson  v.  Sayre,  158  TJ.  S.  118, 
15  S.  Ct.  773,  39  L.  ed.  914;  Swaim  v.  United  States,  165  TJ.  S.  561, 
17  S.  Ct.  448,  41  L.  ed.  823;  In  re  Vidal,  179  U.  S.  527,  21  S.  Ct.  48, 
45  L.  ed.  118;  McClaughry  v.  Deming,  186  U.  S.  69,  22  S.  Ct.  786,  46 
L.  ed.  1049. 

4  Wales  v.  Whitney,  114  TJ.  S.  570,  5  S.  Ct.  1050,  29  L.  ed.  277; 
In  re  Grimley,  137  U.  S.  150,  11  S.  Ct.  54,  34  L.  ed.  636;  Carter  v. 
McClaughry,  183  U.  S.  401,  22  S.  Ct.  181,  46  L.  ed.  236. 

5  United  States  v.  Eliason,  16  Pet.  302,  10  L.  ed.  968. 

6  United  States  v.  Freeman,  3  How.  567,  11  L.  ed.  724;  Gratiot  v. 
United  States,  4  How.  117,  11  L.  ed.  884;  Ex  parte  Reed,  100  U.  S. 
22,  25  L.  ed.  538. 

7  Smith  v.  Whitney,  116  U.  S.  176,  6  S.  Ct.  570,  29  L.  ed.  601. 


201  Militia.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  15 

15.  To  provide  for  calling  forth  the  militia  to  execute 
the  laws  of  the  Union,  suppress  insurrections,  and  repel 
invasions; 

Exercise  of  the  Power. 

The  power  to  call  forth  the  militia  is  limited  to  the  three 
purposes  expressed.1  This  clause  imports  no  prohibition  as  to 
the  use  of  the  army  and  navy  for  the  same  purposes,  nor  that 
the  militia  cannot  be  used  for  the  suppression  of  a  rebellion  as 
well  as  an  insurrection;2  the  authority  to  suppress  rebellion  is 
found  in  tbe  powers  to  suppress  insurrection  and  carry  on  war.3 
The  power  here  granted  is  a  continuation  of  the  powers  to  de- 
clare war,  maintain  armies  and  navies,  and  provide  for  the 
common  defense;4  it  is  to  be  exercised  when  sudden  emergency 
renders  it  necessary  to  preserve  peace  and  the  existence  of  the 
Union.5  The  power  to  repel  invasions  includes  the  power  to 
provide  against  the  attempt  or  danger  of  invasion,6  and  upon 
the  suppression  of  a  rebellion  Congress  may  prescribe  the  con- 
ditions of  peace.7 

The  act  of  February  28,  1795,  delegating  to  the  President 
power  to  call  forth  the  militia  is  constitutional.8  Under  this  act 
the  power  to  determine  when  the  exigency  requiring  the  calling 
forth  of  the  militia  has  arisen  is  exclusively  in  the  President,9 

1  Kneedler  v.  Lane,  45  Pa.  St.  238. 

2  Texas  v.  White,  7  Wall.  700,  19  L.  ed.  227;  Metropolitan  Bank 
v.  Van  Dyck,  27  N.  Y.  400;  Kneedler  v.  Lane,  45  Pa.  St.  238. 

3  Texas  v.  White,  7  Wall.  701,  19  L.  ed.  227;  Tyler  v.  Defrees,  11 
Wall.  345,  20  L.  ed.  161. 

4  Kneedler  v.  Lane,  45  Pa.  St.  238. 

5- Luther  v.  BoTden,  7  How.  43,  12  L.  ed.  581;  Ex  parte  Vallan ding- 
ham,  28  Fed.  Cas.  907. 

6  Martin  v.  Mott,  12  Wheat.  19,  6  L.  ed.  537. 

1  Jacoway  v.  Denton,  25  Ark.  625;  Shorter  v.  Cobb,  39  Ga.  285. 

8  Luther  v.  Borden,  7  How.  43,  12  L.  ed.  581;  Martin  v.  Mott,  12 
Wheat.  32,  33,  6  L.  ed.  537. 

9  Martin  v.  Mott,  12  Wheat.  33,  6  L.  ed.  537;  Luther  v.  Borden, 
7  How.  43,  12  L.  ed.  581;  Ex  parte  Vallandingham,  28  Fed.  Cae.  907; 
Van  Derhe/den  v.  Young,  11  Johns.  150;  Duffield  v.  Smith,  3  Serg. 
&  E.  590. 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  15  Militia.  202 

and  his  determination  upon  this  point  is  conclusive.10  The 
President  may  make  his  request  direct  to  the  executive  of  the 
state,  or  by  order  directed  to  any  subordinate  officer  of  the  mili- 
tia;11 such  a  request  is,  in  legal  intendment,  an  order,12  dis- 
obedience of  which  renders  a  citizen  liable  to  court-martial.13 
Congress  may  make  laws  to  enforce  a  call;14  in  this  the  states 
have  concurrent  power,  and  may  prescribe  penalties  for  failure 
to  obey  the  President's  call.15  They  possess  also  a  concurrent 
power  to  aid  the  national  government  by  calls  under  their  own 
authority,16  and  in  emergencies  may  use  the  militia  to  put 
down  armed  insurrection.16* 

Status  of  Militia  in  Service. 


So  long  as  the  militia  is  acting  under  the  military  jurisdic- 
tion to  which  it  belongs  the  state  and  federal  governments  have 
concurrent  power  over  it;17  but  the  militia  is  not  subject  to  the 
rules  and  articles  of  war  unless  in  the  actual  employment  of 
the  United  States.18  Congress  has  always  recognized  a  sub- 
stantial difference  between  the  regular  forces  and  the  militia,19 
and  it  is  only  when  called  out  and  actually  mustered  into  the 
service   that  state  forces  become  national   militia.20     Congress 

io  Martin  v.  Mott,  12  Wheat.  43,  6  L.  ed.  537;  Luther  v.  Borden, 

7  How.  43,  12  L.  ed.  581. 

ii  Houston  v.  Moore,  5  Wheat.  15,  5  L.  ed.  19. 

12  Houston  v.  Moore,  5  Wheat.  40,  5  L.  ed.  19. 

13  Martin  v.  Mott,  12  Wheat.  34,  6  L.  ed.  537;  Tyler  v.  Pomeroy, 

8  Allen,  493. 

14  Commonwealth  v.  Irish,  3  Serg.  &  E.  176. 

16  Houston  v.  Moore,  5  Wheat.  15,  5  L.  ed.  19. 
i«  Houston  v.  Moore,  5  Wheat.  15,  5  L.  ed.  19. 
16a  Luther  v.  Borden,  7  How.  45,  12  L.  ed.  581. 

17  Houston  v.  Moore,  5  Wheat.  16,  5  L.  ©d.  19. 

is  Houston  v.  Moore,  5  Wheat.  62,  5  L.  ed.  19;  Howes  ▼.  Midde- 
borough,  108  Mass.  127;  In  re  Sprangler,  11  Mich.  321;  Mills  v.  Mar- 
tin,  19  Johns.   24. 

19  McClaughry  v.  Deming,  186  TJ.  S.  56-61,  22  S.  Ot.  786,  46  L.  ed. 
1049. 

20  Houston  v.  Moore,  5  Wheat.  15,  5  L.  ed.  19;  Martin  v.  Mott, 
12  Wheat.  19,  6  L.  ed.  537. 


203  Militia.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  15 

may  fix  the  period  at  which  state  militia  shall  be  deemed  in  the 
federal  service;  in  the  absence  of  action  fixing  such  time  the 
national  service  begins  upon  reaching  the  place  of  rendezvous.21 

21  Houston  v.  Moore,  5  Wheat.  16-20,  5  L.  ed.  19;  Antrim's  Case, 
1  Fed.  Gas.  (No.  495),  1064;  McCall's  Case,  15  Fed.  Cas.  (No.  8669), 
1226. 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  16  Militia.  204 

16.  To  provide  for  organizing,  arming,  and  disciplin- 
ing the  militia,  and  for  governing  such  part  of  them  as 
may  be  employed  in  the  service  of  the  United  States, 
reserving  to  the  States  respectively  the  appointment 
of  the  officers,  and  the  authority  of  training  the 
militia  according  to  the  discipline  prescribed  by  Con- 
gress; 

Power  of  Congress. 

The  power  to  govern  the  militia  is  distinct  from  the  power  of 
calling  it'  out.1  Organizing  includes  the  determination  of 
qualifications.2  The  power  of  Congress  becomes  exclusive  after 
the  militia  has  entered  the  service  of  the  United  States,3  and 
so  far  as  Congress  has  provided  for  organization  action  by  the 
states  is  excluded,4  and  where  a  board  of  surgeons  has  been 
authorized  to  determine  the  qualifications  of  members  of  the 
militia  its  actions  cannot  be  controlled  by  state  courts.5  The 
power  of  Congress  is  unlimited  except  in  the  officering  and 
training  of  the  militia.6 

Powers  of  States. 

If  Congress  neglects  to  exercise  its  power  under  this  clause 
the  states  have  concurrent  power  so  long  as  the  militia  is  acting 
under  its  jurisdiction.7  In  such  case  it  is  only  the  actual  ex- 
ercise of  its  power  by  Congress  that  excludes  state  action,8  and 
even  where  Congress  has  acted  state  laws  are  void  only  so  far 
as  they  conflict  with  congressional  legislation.9  The  President 
must  exercise  his  command  of  the  militia  through  the  duly 
appointed  state  officers.10 

1  Houston  v.  Moore,  5  Wheat.  16,  5  L.  ed.  19. 

2  Opinions  of  Justices,  80  Mass.  548. 

3  Houston  v.  Moore,  5  Wheat.  16,  5  L.  ed.  19. 

*  Houston  v.  Moore,  5  Wheat.  51,  5  L.  ed.  19;  Mills  v.  Martin,  19 
Johns.    7. 

6  Ex  parte  Hill,  38  Ala.  450. 

6  Houston  v.  Moore,  5  Wheat.  56,  5  L.  ed.  19. 

1  Houston  v.  Moore,  5  Wheat.  56,  5  L.  ed.  19;  Luther  v.  Borden,  7 
How.  45,  12  L.  ed.  581. 

8  People  v.  Hill,  126  N.  Y.  504,  27  N.  E.  790. 

9  Houston  v.  Moore,  5  Wheat.  56,  5  L.  ed.  19;  Ihinne  v.  People,  94 
111.  120,  23  Am.  Eep.  213. 

io   Opinions  of  Justices,  80  Mass.  548. 


205  District  of  Columbia.      Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  17 

17.  To  exercise  exclusive  legislation  in  all  cases 
whatsoever,  over  such  district  (not  exceeding1  ten  miles 
square)  as  may,  by  cession  of  particular  States,  and 
the  acceptance  of  Congress,  become  the  seat  of  the 
Government  of  the  United  States,  and  to  exercise 
like  authority  over  all  places  purchased  by  the  con- 
sent of  the  Legislature  of  the  State  in  which  the  same 
shall  be,  for  the  erection  of  forts,  magazines,  arsenals, 
dockyards,  and  other  needful  buildings;  and 

District  of  Columbia. 

By  this  clause  Congress  is  given  exclusive  jurisdiction  over  the 
District  of  Columbia  for  every  purpose  of  government,1  national 
or  local.2  in  all  cases  whatsoever,  including  taxation.3  The 
terms  of  this  clause  are  not  limited  by  the  principle  that  repre- 
sentation is  necessary  to  taxation;  taxes  may  be  levied  on  the 
basis  of  the  census  directed  to  be  taken  by  the  constitution.4 
Congress  legislates  for  the  District  with  the  same  power  as  the 
legislative  assemblies  of  the  states,5  and  in  so  doing  it  acts  as 
the  legislature  of  the  Union.6  The  failure  of  Congress  to  ex- 
ercise its  power  in  no  way  impairs  the  grant,7  but  it  must  be 
exercised  subject  to  the  prohibitions  contained  in  the  constitu- 
tion.8    Courts  established  under  this  clause  may  issue  all  nec- 

i  Loughborough  v.  Blake,  5  Wheat.  324,  5  L.  ed.  98;  Cohen  v. 
Virginia,  6  Wheat.  264,  5  L.  ed.  257;  Kendall  v.  United  States,  12 
Pet.  619;  Mattingly  v.  District  of  Columbia,  97  U.  S.  690,  24  L.  ed. 
1098. 

2  Shoemaker  v.  United  States,  147  U.  S.  300,  13  S.  Ct.  361,  30  L. 
ed.  170;  Parsons  v.  District  of  Columbia,  170  U.  S.  52,  18  S.  Ct.  521, 
42  L.  ed.  943;  Capitol  Traction  Co.  v.  Hof,  174  U.  S.  5,  19  S.  Ct. 
580,  43  L.  ed.  873;  United  States  v.  Cornell,  2  Mason,  91,  Fed.  Cas. 

No.  14,868. 

3  Loughborough  v.  Blake,  5  Wheat.  335,  5  L.  ed.  98;  Gibbins  v. 
District  of  Columbia,  116  U.  S.  467,  6  S.  Ct.  429,  29  L.  ed.  680. 

■i  Loughborough  v.  Blake,  5  Wheat.  321,  5  L.  ed.  98. 

5  Mattingly  v.  District  of  Columbia,  97  U.  S.  690,  24  L.  ed.  1098. 

6  Cohens  v.  Virginia,  6  Wheat.  264,  5  L.  ed.  257. 

7  Quinn's  Case,  12  Int.  Rev.  Rec.  151. 

s   United  States  v.  More,  3  Cr.  160,  2  L.  ed  397. 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  17     District  of  Columbia.  20G 

essary  process  and  such  process  may  be  served  anywhere  in  the 
United  States.9 

Status  and  Local  Government. 


The  District  of  Columbia  is  a  separate  political  community 
in  a  certain  sense,  and  in  that  sense  may  be  called  a  state  whose 
sovereign  power  is  lodged  in  the  government  of  the  United 
States;10  but  it  is  not  strictly  a  state  within  the  meaning  of 
that  term  as  used  in  the  constitution.11  The  inhabitants  of 
the  District  are  not  citizens  of  a  state.12  The  District  of  Col- 
umbia is  a  municipal  corporation,13  and  as  such  it  may  be  in- 
vested with  legislative  authority;14  but  it  can  exercise  only 
those  powers  which  are  expressly  conferred  by  statute,15  which 
must  be  of  a  strictly  municipal  nature.16  Thus  Congress  may 
delegate  the  power  to  improve  or  repair  streets  and  to  assess 
adjacent  property  therefor;17  to  construct  an  aqueduct  drawing 
its  supply  from  within  a  consenting  state;18  to  regulate  public 

9  United  States  v.  Williams,  4  Cr.  C.  C.  393,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,712. 

io  Metropolitan  E.  E.  v.  District  of  Columbia,  132  U.  S.  9,  10  S. 
Ct.  19,  33  L.  ed.  231;  Talbott  v.  Silver  Bow  County,  139  U.  S.  444, 
11  S.  Ct.  594,  35  L.  ed.  210. 

11  Hepburn  v.  Ellzey,  2  Cr.  453,  2  L.  ed.  332;  Eailroad  Co.  v. 
Harris,  12   Wall.  86,  20  L.  ed.   354. 

12  Hooe  v.  Jamieson,  166  U.  S.  397,  17  S.  Ct.  597,  41  L.  ed.  1049; 
Picquet  v.  Swan,  5  Masen,  55,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,134;  Prentiss  v.  Bren- 
naD,  2  Blatchf.  164,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,385;  Cissel  v.  McDonald,  16 
Blatchf.  152,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2729. 

13  Thompson  v.  Carroll,  22  How.  435,  16  L.  ed.  387;  Metropolitan 
B,  E.  v.  District  of  Columbia,  132  U.  S.  9,  10  S.  Ct.  19,  33  L.  ed. 
231. 

14  United  States  v.  Bevans,  3  Wheat.  388,  4  L.  ed.  404;  Welch  v. 
Cook,  97  U.  S.  542,  24  L.  ed.  1112. 

is  District  of  Columbia  v.  Bailey,  171  U.  S.  176,  18  S.  Ct.  868,  43 
L.  ed.  118. 

16  Stoutenburgh  v.  Hennick,  129  U.  S.  147,  9  S.  Ct.  256,  32  L.  ed. 
637. 

17  Wdllard  v.  Presbury,  14  Wall.  680,  20  L.  ed.  719;  Wilson  v. 
Lambert,  168'  U.  S.  614,  18  S.  Ct.  217,  42  L.  ed.  599;  Wright  v. 
Davidson,  181  U.  S.  379,  21  S.  Ct.  616,  45  L.  ed.  900. 

18  Eedall  v.  Bryan,  14  Md.  444,  74  Am.  Dec.  550. 


207  District  of  Columbia.     Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  17 

markets;19  but  the  power  of  Congress  to  regulate  commerce 
cannot  be  delegated  to  the  District.20  The  grant  of  local  gov- 
ernment is  not  a  delegation  of  the  power  of  exclusive  legisla- 
tion given  to  Congress.21 

Operation  and  Effect  of  Cession. 


The  act  of  July  16,  1790,  providing  for  the  establishment  of 
the  seat  of  government  accepted  a  certain  district,  but  by  its 
provisions  state  laws  were  not  to  be  affected  until  Congress  pro- 
vided for  the  government  of  the  district.  As  such  provision  was 
not  made  until  February  27,  1801,  the  state  right  to  legislate 
continued  until  that  time,22  and  where  the  acts  of  Congress 
made  no  changes  in  the  existing  laws,  the  laws  of  Virginia  and 
Maryland  remained  in  force  in  the  parts  of  the  district  ceded 
by  them  respectively;23  but  the  effect  of  statutes  within  the 
district  cannot  be  controlled  by  decision  of  the  state  courts  ren- 
dered since  the  cession.24  As  to  the  operation  of  the  cession 
upon  individuals,  its  only  effect  was  to  terminate  the  state  citi- 
zenship of  residents;25  contract  obligations  were  not  affected,26 
and  liens  on  property  for  debt  were  continued.27 

"Places  Purchased." 


This  phrase  limits  the  national  government  to  one  mode  of 
acquiring    exclusive   legislative   authority    over  land    within  a 

19  Washington  etc.  Co.  v.  District  of  Columbia,  172  U.  S.  367,  368, 
19  S.  Ct.  218,  43  L.  ed.  478. 

20  Stoutenburgh  v.  Hennick,  129  U.  S.  147,  9  S.  Ct.  256,  32  L.  ed. 
637. 

21  Washington  v.  Eaton,  4  Cr.  C.  C.  352,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,228. 

22  Young  v.  Bank  of  Alexandria,  4  Cr.  384,  3  L.  ed.  32. 

23  United  States  v.  Sims,  1  Cr.  256,  2  L.  ed.  98;  Tayloe  v.  Thomp- 
»on,  5  Pet.  368,  8  L.  ed.  154;  Ex  parte  Watkins.  7  Pet.  574,  8  L.  ed. 
186;  Deneale  v.  Archer,  8  Pet.  530,  8  L.  ed.  1033;  Stelle  v.  Carroll, 
J2  Pet.  206,  9  L.  ed.  1056;  United  States  v.  Eliaaon,  16  Pet.  301, 
10  L.  ed.  968;  Ehodes  v.  Bell,  2  How.  404,  11  L.  ed.  314;  In  re  Wolf, 
27  Fed.  606. 

24  Kussell  v.  Allen,  107  U.  S.  171,  2  S.  Ct.  327,  27  L.  ed.  397. 
23  Eeilly  v.  Lamar,  2  Cr.  356,  2  L.  ed.  300. 

26  Korn  v.  Mutual  Assur.  Soc,  6  Cr.  199,  3  L.  ed.  195. 

27  Mutual  Assur.  Soc.  v.  Watts,  1  Wheat.  282,  4  L.  ed.   91. 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  17  Land  Purchased.  208 

state,  viz.,  by  purchase  with  the  state's  consent;  when  land  is 
acquired  in  any  other  way,  as  by  cession,  any  conditions  may 
be  annexed  to  it  not  inconsistent  with  the  public  use  contem- 
plated.28 So  a  state  may  impose  the  condition  that  jurisdic- 
tion shall  be  retained  by  the  United  States  only  so  long  as  the 
place  is  used  for  the  purposes  specified  ;29  may  continue  its  laws 
in  force  there  so  far  as  they  do  not  conflict  with  necessary  acts 
of  Congress;30  or  may  provide  that  civil  and  criminal  process 
of  state  courts  may  be  executed  therein;31  but  where  a  cession 
has  been  made  subject  to  certain  conditions,  the  United  States 
takes  entire  political  jurisdiction,  save  as  expressed  in  the  con- 
ditions, and  it  cannot  be  limited  without  the  consent  of  Con- 
gress.32 

The  United  States  can  acquire  the  right  of  exclusive  juris- 
diction only  in  the  mode  pointed  out  by  the  constitution.33 
The  government  may  own  and  use  land  within  a  state  without 
acquiring  jurisdiction  over  the  territory.34  If  land  is  acquired 
from  the  owner  the  United  States  holds  it  in  subordination  to 
the  ordinary  laws  of  the  state;35  the  mere  purchase  itself  does 
not  oust  the  jurisdiction  or  sovereignty  of  the  state  over  the 

28  Chicago  etc.  Ry.  Co.  v.  McGlinn,  114  U.  S.  545,  5  S.  Ct.  1005, 
29  L.  ed.  270;  In  re  Kelly,  71  Fed.  549. 

29  Fort  Leavenworth  Ry.  v.  Lowe,  114  U.  S.  525,  5  S.  Ot.  995,  29 
L.  ed.  264;  Palmer  v.  Barrett,  162  U.  S.  399,  16  S.  Ct.  837,  40  L.  ed. 
1015;  affirming  135  N.  Y.  336,  31  N.  E.  1017,  17  L.  E.  A.  720. 

30  Chicago  etc.  Ry.  v.  McGlinn,  114  U.  S.  546,  5  S.  Ct.  1005,  29 
L.  ed.  270;  Crook  etc.  v.  Old  Point  Comfort  Hotel  Co.,  54  Fed.  604. 

31  Palmer  v.  Barrett,  162  TJ.  S.  399,  16  S.  Ct.  837,  40  L.  ed.  1015; 
Martin  v.  House,  39  Fed.  694. 

32  In  re  Ladd,  74  Fed.  31;  United  States  v.  Cornell!,  2  Mason,  66, 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,867;  United  States  v.  Davis,  5  Mason,  356,  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  14,930;  Commonwealth  v.  Clary,  8  Mass.  72;  Mitchell  v.  Tibbetts, 
34  Mass.  298;  United  States  v.  Travers,  2  Wheel.  C.  C.  490,  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  16,537. 

33  United  States  v.  Tierney,  1  Bond,  571,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  r6,517; 
People  v.  Godfrey.  17  Johns.  225;  Clay  v.  State,  4  Kan.  49. 

34  Renner  v.  Bennett,  21  Ohio  St.  431. 

85  United  States  v.  Crosby,  7  Cr.  116,  3  L.  ed.  287;  Commoawealtli 
v.  Young,  Bright.   302. 


209  Land  Purchased.         Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  17 

land  purchased  ;3C  the  government  holds  only  as  an  individual,37 
as  where  land  is  rented  for  a  temporary  purpose.38 

Consent  or  ratification  by  the  state  is  necessary  to  the  acqui- 
sition of  exclusive  jurisdiction,39  but  it  is  necessary  for  no  other 
purpose,  and  cannot  be  required  in  order  to  permit  the  United 
States  to  exercise  its  right  of  eminent  domain.40  An  act  of  the 
state  legislature  will  not  confer  exclusive  jurisdiction  without 
some  act  of  acceptance  upon  the  part  of  the  United  States,41 
and  a  conveyance  of  land  to  the  United  States  is  void  and  in- 
operative unless  the  acquisition  was  authorized  by  Congress.42 
"When,  however,  these  acts  have  concurred  the  state  jurisdiction 
ceases,43  and  the  ordinary  laws  of  the  state  cease  to  have  any 
force  in  the  place  acquired.44  This  phrase  contemplates  only 
"places"  acquired  within  a  state  and  is  not  applicable  to  terri- 
tories.45 

36  United  States  v.  Cornell,  2  Mason,  66,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,867; 
United  States  v.  Davis,  5  Mason,  364,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,930;  United 
States  v.  San  Francisco  Bridge  Co.,  8S  Fed.  891;  Commonwealth  v. 
Clary,  8  Mass.   72. 

37  Commonwealth  v.  Young,  Bright.  302;  People  v.  Godfrey,  17 
Johns.  225;  "United  States  v.  Traver,  2  Wheel.  C.  C.  490,  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  16,537;  People  v.  Lent,  2  Wheel.  C.  C.  548. 

38  United  States  v.  Tierney,  1  Bond,  571,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,517; 
Renner  v.  Bennett,  21  Ohio  St.  431. 

39  United  States  v.  San  Francisco  Bridge  Co.,  88  Fed.  891;  United 
States  v.  Tierney,  1  Bond,  571,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,517;  United  States 
v.  Cornell,  2  Mason,  66,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,867;  Commonwealth  v. 
Young.  Bright.   302;   McConnell   v.  Wilcox,  2  111.   344. 

40  Fort  Leavenworth  etc.  B.  R.  v.  Lowe,  114  U.  S.  531,  5  S.  Ct. 
995,  29  L.  ed.  264;  Chappell  v.  United  States,  160  U.  S.  510,  16  S.  Ct. 
397,  40  L.  ed.  510;  Ex  parte  Hebard,  4  Dill.  384,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6312; 
United  States  v.  Stahl,  MeCahon,  206,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,373. 

41  People  v.  Lent,  2  Wheel.  C.  C.  548. 

42  United  States  v.  Tichenor,  12  Fed.  415. 

43  United.  States  v.  Cornell,  2  Mason,  66,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,867; 
Commonwealth  v.  Young,  Bright.  302;  People  v.  Godfrey,  17  Johns. 
225. 

44  United  States  v.  Bevans,  3  Wheat.  336,  4  L.  ed.  404;  Cohens  v. 
Virginia,  6  Wheat.  360,  5  L.  ed.  257;  United  States  v.  Ames,  1  Wood. 
&  M.  84,  Fed.  Cas.  No.   14,441;  People  v.  Godfrey,  17  Johns.  225. 

45  Reynolds  v.  People,  1   Colo.   179. 

Ndes  on  Constitution — 14 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  17  Land  Purchased.  210 

Congress  may  relinquish  political  jurisdiction  over  land  ac- 
quired within  a  state  without  abandoning  the  use  of  the  prop- 
erty itself,46  and  land  once  purchased  cannot  be  sold  without 
special  authority  of  Congress.47  The  mere  abandonment  of  a 
military  post  gives  no  authority  to  the  Secretary  of  War  to  sell 
the  land,  and  such  a  sale  is  void.48  In  case  of  retrocession  the 
jurisdiction  and  authority  of  the  United  States  cease.49 

Powers  of  States  and  United  States. 

Lands  within  a  state  can  be  withdrawn  from  its  control  only 
by  compact  or  the  voluntary  legislative  action  of  the  state.'"'" 
The  state  may  continue  to  legislate  for  places  acquired  by  the 
general  government  so  far  as  that  power  has  not  been  delegated 
to  the  latter,51  and  may  punish  crimes  committed  therein  to  the 
same  extent.52  The  authority  of  the  state  with  respect  to 
crimes  continues  until  Congress  extinguishes  it  by  legislation;53 
but  where  property  has  been  purchased  with  the  consent  of  the 
state,  strictly  as  provided  in  this  clause,  offenses  committed  on 
such  property  cannot  be  punished  in  the  state  courts.54  While, 
as  to  land  acquired  without  the  consent  of  the  state,  the  United 

40   Renner  v.  Bennett,  21  Ohio  St.  431. 

47  United  States  v.  Eailroad  Br.  Co.,  6  McLean,  517,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
16,114. 

48  Lear  v.  United  States,  50  Fed.  65. 

49  Phillips  v.  Payne,  92  U.   S.   131,  23  L.   ed.  649. 

50  Lovrrey  v.  Weaver,  4  McLean,   32,  Fed.   Cas.  No.   8584. 

51  Ex  parte  Bollman,  4  Cr.  75,  2  L.  ed.  554;  Ex  parte  Watkins,  3 
Pet.  201,  7  L.  ed.  650;  Kendall  v.  United  States,  12  Pet.  524,  9  L. 
ed.  1181;  Pollard  v.  Hagan,  3  How.  212,  11  L.  ed.  565;  Benson  v. 
United  States,  146  U.  S.  329,  13  S.  Ct.  60,  36  L.  ed.  991. 

52  United  States  v.  Bevans,  3  Wheat,  388,  4  L.  ed.  404;  United 
States  v.  Stahl,  McCahon,  209,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,373;  United  States 
v.  Ames,  1  Wood.  &  M.  80,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,441;  United  States  v. 
Sa-coo-da-cot,  1  Abb.  U.  S.  383,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,212. 

53  People  v.  Lent,  2  Wheel.  C.  C.  548;  In  re  O'Connor,  37  Wis. 
379,  19  Am.  Eep.   765. 

54  United  States  v.  Ames,  1  Wood.  &  M.  76,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,441; 
Commonwealth  v.  Clary,  8  Mass.  72: 


211  Land  Purchased.  Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  17 

States  holds  as  an  individual  and  the  state  retains  its  sover- 
eignty, yet  such  property  is  exempt  from  state  taxation.35 

The  authority  over  purchased  sites  binds  all  the  states,  and 
carries  with  it  the  right  to  render  it  effectual,56  and  includes 
the  power  of  taxation.57  The  inhabitants  of  property  pur- 
chased are  not  citizens  or  electors  of  the  state  wherein  the  prop- 
erty is  situated,58  nor  are  they  liable  to  state  taxation  on  ac- 
count of  such  residence.59  The  purchase  of  land  by  a  corpora- 
tion created  by  act  of  Congress  gives  the  United  States  no  jur- 
isdiction over  such  land.60  Jurisdiction  over  forts  and  mili- 
tary reservations  in  Wyoming  is  exclusively  in  the  federal  gov- 
ernment.61 

55  Van  Brocklin  v.  Tennessee,  117  U.  S.  178,  6  S.  Ct.  670,  29  L.  ed. 
845;  Wisconsin  E.  E.  v.  Price  County,  133  U.  S.  504,  10  S.  Ct.  344, 
33  L.  ed.  687;  United  States  v.  Weise,  2  Wall.  Jr.  72,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
16,659;  Bannon  v.  Burnes,  39  Fed.  898;  United  States  v.  Milwaukee, 
100  Fed.   828. 

56  Cohens  v.  Virginia,  6  Wheat.  428,  5  L.  ed.  257;  Grether  v. 
Wright,    75   Fed.    757. 

57  Loughborough  v.  Blake,  5  Wheat.  324,  5  L.  ed.  98. 

58  Commonwealth  v.  Clary,  8  Mass.  72;  Sinks  v.  Eeese,  19  Ohio  St. 
306,   2   Am.  Eep.   397. 

59  Webster  v.  Seymour,  8  Vt.  135. 

60  In  re  O'Connor,  37  Wis.  379,  19  Am.  Eep.  765. 

61  Scott  v.  United  States,  1  Wyo.  40;  Brown  v.  Ilges,  1  Wyo.  202. 


Ait.  I,  §8,  CI.  18        Incidental  Powebs.  212 

18.  To  make  all  laws  which  shall  be  necessary  and 
proper  for  carrying  into  execution  the  foregoing 
powers,  and  all  other  powers  vested  by  this  Constitu- 
tion in  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  or  in 
any  department  or  officer  thereof. 

Implied  Powers. 

This  clause  is  not  a  limitation  or  restriction  upon  the  powers 
of  Congress,  but  an  enlargement  of  them;  it  is  a  direct  author- 
ity for  the  exercise  of  the  power  to  make  "all  laws  which  shall 
be  necessary  or  proper"  for  carrying  into  execution  the  powers 
enumerated.1  Many  powers  are  necessarily  implied  under  the 
express  grants  of  power  in  the  constitution;  "it  would  be  Uto- 
pian to  suppose  that  a  government  can  exist  without  leaving  the 
exercise  of  discretion  somewhere."2  The  constitution  does  not 
profess  to  enumerate  the  means  by  which  the  powers  it  confers 
shall  be  enumerated,3  and  where  an  end  is  required  and  a  duty 
is  enjoined,  the  ability  to  perform  it  is  contemplated  to  exist 
on  the  part  of  the  functionaries  to  whom  it  is  intrusted.4 

Public  necessity  determines  the  existence  of  the  incidental 
power  where  the  end  to  be  accomplished  is  within  the  scope  of 

1  United  States  v.  Fisher,  2  Cr.  396,  2  L.  ed.  304;  MoCulloch  v. 
Maryland,  4  Wheat.  411,  424,  4  L.  ed.  579;  Anderson  v.  Dunn,  6 
Wheat.  225,  5  L.  ed.  242;  United  States  v.  Marigold,  9  How.  560,  13 
L.  ed.  257;  Legal  Tender  Cases,  12  Wall.  532,  20  L.  ed.  287;  Inter- 
state Commerce  Commission  v.  Brimson,  154  U.  S.  472,  14  S.  Ct.  1131, 
38  L.  ed.  1047;  In  re  Debs,  158  U.  S.  578,  15  S.  Ct.  904,  39  L.  ed. 
1995;  In  re  Quarles,  158  U.  S.  537,  15  S.  Ct.  961,  39  L.  ed.  1080;  The 
City  of  Salem,  13  Saw.  612,  37  Fed.  850;  Benner  v.  Dredging  Co., 
134  N.  Y.  163,  30  Am.  St.  Eep.  654,  31  N.  E.  330,  17  L.  E.  A.  220; 
Metropolitan  Bank  v.  Van  Dyck,  27  N.  Y.  400;  Commonwealth  v. 
Morrison,  2  A.  K.  Marsh.  75;  Mitchell  v.  Steelman,  8  Cal.  363;  Dickey 
v.  Turnpike  Co.,  7  Dana,  113;  Minturn  v.  Brower,  24  Cal.  663. 

2  Anderson  v.  Dunn,  6  Wheat.  225,  226,  5  L.  ed.  242;  Metropolitan 
Bank  v.  Van  Dyck,  27  N.  Y.  430. 

3  McOulloeh  v.  Maryland,  4  Wheat.  407,  4  L.  ed.  579;  Prigg  v. 
Commonwealth,  16  Pet.  614,  10  L.  ed.  1060;  United  States  v.  Cruik- 
shank.  92  U.  S.  542,  23  L.  ed.  588;  Thompson  v.  Pacific  R.  R.  Co., 
9  Wall.  579,  19  L.  ed.  792. 

4  Prigg  v.  Commonwealth,  16  Pet.  615,  10  L.  ed.  1060;  United 
States  v.  Cruikshank,  1  Woods,  314,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,897. 


213  Incidental  Powers.        Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  18 

the  constitution.5  The  word  "necessary"  does  not  mean  abso- 
lutely necessary,  nor  does  it  imply  only  the  use  of  direct  means.6 
"Necessary"  and  "proper"  as  here  used  are  synonymous,"  and 
merely  require  that  the  means  shall  be  appropriate.8  The  con- 
stitution deals  in  general  language  and  should  have  a  reason- 
able construction;  it  leaves  Congress  to  adopt  its  own  means  of 
carrying  out  the  powers  conferred,9  and  where  these  means  are 
really  calculated  to  effect  the  object  intrusted  to  Congress  the 
courts  will  not  inquire  into  the  degree  of  their  necessity.10 
Congress  is  allowed  a  wide  discretion  as  to  the  means  to  be  em- 
ployed, but  the  means  must  bear  some  relation  to  the  fitness 
of  things  and  to  the  end  to  be  accomplished.11  There  must  be 
some  relation  between  the  means  and  the  end;12  but  the  rela- 
tionship need  not  be  direct  and  immediate.13 

The  courts  will  determine  whether  the  means  employed  by 
Congress  have  any  relation  to  the  powers  granted  by  the  con- 
stitution,14 and  if  the  measures  adopted  as  the  most  eligible  and 

5  Anderson  v.  Dunn,  6  Wheat.  215,  5  L.  eel.  242. 

6  McCulloch  v.  Maryland,  4  Wheat.  419,  4  L.  ed.  579;  United  States 
v.  Fisher,  2  Cr.  396,  2  L.  ed.  304;  Juillard  v.  Greenman,  110  U.  S. 
447,  4  S.  Ct.  126,  28  L.  ed.  204;  In  re  Jackson,  14  Blatehf.  250,  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  7124;  Lick  v.  Faulkner,  25  Cal.  422;  George  v.  Concord,  45 
N.  H.  443.  And  see  Hancock  v.  Yaden,  121  Ind.  370,  16  Am.  St. 
Rep.  399,  23  N.  E.  254,  6  L.  R,  A.  576. 

7  Metropolitan  Bank  v.  Van  Dyck,  27  N.  Y.  400. 

8  Martin  v.  Hunter,  1  Wheat.  326,  4  L.  ed.  97;  Legal  Tender  Cases, 
12  Wall.  532,  20  L.  ed.  287. 

9  Martin  v.  Hunter,  1  Wheat.  326,  4  L.  ed.  97. 

io  McCulloch  v.  Maryland,  6  Wheat.  419,  4  L.  ed.  579. 

li  United  States  v.  Fisher,  2  Cr.  396,  2  L.  ed.  304;  Stewart  v. 
Kahn,  11  Wall.  506,  20  L.  ed.  176;  Juillard  v.  Greenman,  110  U.  S. 
439,  4  S.  Ct.  122,  28  L.  ed.  204;  Motes  v.  United  States,  178  U.  S. 
462,  20  S.  Ct.  993,  44  L.  eel.  1150;  Interstate  Commerce  Com,  v.  Brim- 
son,  154  U.  S.  478,  14  S.  Ct.  1125,  38  L.  ed.  1047. 

12  Hepburn  v.  Griswold,  8  Wall.  613,  19  L.  ed.  513;  Legal  Tender 
Oases,  12  Wall.  544,  20  L.  ed.  2S7. 

13  Legal  Tender  Cases,  12  Wall.  536,  20  L.  ed.  287. 

14  Cherokee  Nation  v.  Kansas  Ry.  Co.,  135  U.  S.  657,  10  S.  Ct. 
965,  34  L.  ed.  295. 


An.  I,  §  8,  CI.  18        Incidental  Powers.  211 

appropriate  are  adapted  to  the  end  to  be  accomplished,15  and 
are  not  inconsistent  in  letter  or  spirit  with  the  limitations  of 
the  constitution,16  the  courts  cannot  declare  them  inexpedient 
or  unwise.17 

Every  act  of  Congress,  to  be  valid,  must  find  in  the  constitu- 
tion some  warrant  for  its  passage;18  but  while  construction, 
for  the  purpose  of  conferring  a  power,  should  be  resorted  to 
with  great  caution,19  yet  every  reasonable  construction  must  be 
resorted  to  to  save  a  statute  from  unconstitutionality,20  and  a 
choice  of  means  by  Congress  is  not  to  be  adjudged  invalid  unless 
the  conflict  between  the  constitution  and  the  statute  is  clear  and 
strong.21  It  is  to  be  remembered1  that  a  grant  of  power  is  con- 
strued according  to  its  reasonable  import  and  is  not  controlled 
by  reference  to  what  existed  at  the  time  when  the  constitution 
was  adopted,22  and  that  if  the  means  adopted  by  Congress  are 
legitimate  they  are  appropriate.23  In  the  execution  of  a  power 
Congress  is  not  restricted  to  the  employment  of  those  means 
alone  without  which  the  power  would  be  nugatory,24  and  if  the 
end  may  be  reached  indirectly  by  one  mode,  it  may  be  reached 

15  Juillard  v.  Greenman,  110  U.  S.  439,  4  S.  Ot.  122,  28  L.  ed. 
204;  Logan  v.  United  States,  144  U.  S.  283,  12  S.  Ct.  677,  36  L.  ed.  429. 

16  Motes  v.  United  States,  178  U.  S.  462,  20  S.  Ct.  933,  44  L.  ed. 
1150;  Interstate  Commerce  Com.  v.  Brimson,  154  U.  S.  486,  14  S.  Ct. 
1125,  38  L.  ed.  1047. 

it  Wilkes  v.  Dinsman,  7  How.  127,  12  L.  ed.  618;  United  States 
v.  Vassar,  5  Wall.  469,  18  L.  ed.  497;  United  States  v.  Union  Pacific 
R,  R.  Co.,  91  U.  S.  91,  23  L.  ed.  224;  Li  Sing  v.  United  States,  180 
U.  S.  495,  21  S.  Ct.  449,  45  L.  ed.  634;  Treat  v.  White,  181  U.  S.  269, 
21  S.  Ct.  611,  45  L.  ed.  853. 

18  United  States  v.  Harris,  106  U.  S.  635,  1  S.  Ct.  601,  27  L.  ed. 
290. 

L9  Ex  parte  Beavins,  33  N.  H.  89;  Mugler  v.  Kansas,  123  U.  S. 
661,  8  S.  Ct.  273,  31  L.  ed.  205. 

20  Hooper  v.  California,  155  U.  S.  657,  15  S.  Ct.  207,  39  L.  ed. 
297;  Sweet  v.  Rechel,  159  U.  S.  392,  16  S.  Ct.  43,  40  L.  ed  188. 

21  Interstate  Commerce  Com.  v.  Brimson,  154  U.  S.  478,  14  S.  Ct. 
1125,  38  L.  ed.  1047. 

22  In  re  Jackson,  14  Blatchf.  249,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7124. 

23  United  States  v.  Rhodes,  1  Abb.  U.  S.  49,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,151. 

24  Boske  v.  Dominique,  177  U.  S.  468,  20  S.  Ct.  701,  44  L.  ed.  846. 


215  Incidental  Powers.        Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  18 

directly  by  another.25  The  limitation  of  necessity  and  pro- 
priety expressed  in  this  clause  extends  only  to  incidental  legis- 
lation, and  in  no  way  affects  the  powers  expressly  granted.26 

Instances  of  Exercise  of  Incidental  Powers. 


Every  right  created  by,  arising  under,  or  dependent  upon  the 
constitution  may  be  protected  or  enforced  by  such  means  as  Con- 
gress may  deem  best;27  if  the  constitution  guarantees  a  right, 
the  national  government  is  clothed  with  authority  to  enforce 
it28 — the  powers  given  to  the  national  government  are  not  in- 
effective because  the  means  of  enforcing  them  are  not  expressly 
given.29  Congress  has  a  large  discretion  as  to  the  means  to  be 
employed,30  and  may  employ  those  means  which,  in  its  judgment 
are  most  advantageous,31  taking  care  only  that  they  are  not  in- 
consistent with  the  limitations  placed  upon  the  general  power 
by  the  constitution.32 

Congress  has  undoubted  power  to  construct  interstate  high- 
ways, and  as  a  means  to  the  exercise  of  that  power  may  organ- 
ize a  corporation.33  Under  its  power  to  regulate  commerce  Con- 
gress may  empower  a  commission  to  investigate  the  conduct 
of  interstate  commerce;34  may  provide  a  penalty  for  obstruct- 
ing interstate   commerce;35   may  pass   an  act  prescribing  the 

25  Interstate  Commerce  Com.  v.  Brimson,  154  U.  S.  486,  14  S.  Ct. 
1125,  3S  L.  ed.  1047. 

26  Gibbons  v.  Ogden,  9  Wheat.  186,  6  L.  ed.  23. 

27  In  re  Quarles,  158  U.  S.  535,  15  S.  Ct.  959,  39  L.  ed.  1080. 

2S  Prigg  v.  Commonwealth,  16  Pet.  619,  10  L.  ed.  1060;  United 
States  v.  Cruikshank,  1  Woods,  314,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,897. 

29  Prigg  v.  Commonwealth,  16  Pet.  618,  10  L.  ed.  1060;  Strauder 
v.  West  Virginia,  100  U.  S.  310,  25  L.  ed.  664. 

30  Boske  v.  Dominique,  177  U.  S.  468,  20  S.  Ct.  701,  44  L.  ed.  846. 

31  MeCulloch  v.  Maryland,  4  Wheat.  419,  4  L.  ed.  579. 

32  Interstate  Commerce  Com.  v.  Brimson,  154  U.  S.  472,  14  S.  Ct. 
1125,  38  L.   ed.   1047. 

33  Luxton  v.  North  River  Bridge  Co.,  153  U.  S.  529,  14  S.  Ct.  891, 
38  L.  ed.  80S. 

34  Interstate  Commerce  Com.  v.  Brimson,  154  U.  S.  473,  14  S.  Ct. 
1125,  38  L.  ed.  1047;  Texas  etc.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Com., 
162  U.  S.  233,  16  S.  Ct.  666,  40  L.  ed.  940. 

35  United  States  v.  Coombs,  12  Pet.  78,  9  L.  ed.  1002;  In  re  Debs, 
158  U.  S.  578,  15  S.  Ct.  904,  39  L.  ed.  1092. 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  18        Incidental  Powers.  21G 

limit  of  capacity  of  passenger  steamers.36  A  company  may  be 
employed  by  Congress  to  dredge  a  navigable  river,  and  a  party 
injured  by  the  operations  of  the  company  cannot  set  up  its  want 
of  authority  in  an  action  for  damages.37  As  an  incident  to  its 
power  to  regulate  commerce,  Congress  cannot,  however,  provide 
for  the  inspection  of  cattle  about  to  be  slaughtered,  although 
the  packing-house  involved  engages  principally  in  interstate 
shipments.38  As  aiding  the  execution  of  the  revenue  laws  Con- 
gress may  provide  for  the  punishment  of  persons  for  interfer- 
ing, by  threats  or  otherwise,  with  the  right  to  inform  of  vio- 
lations;39 to  provide  that  persons  chargeable  with  a  revenue  tax 
shall  submit  disputed  cases  to  a  revenue  collector;40  to  make 
it  a  penal  offense  to  destroy  papers  relating  to  merchandise  li- 
able to  duty;41  and  to  apply  the  provisions  of  the  civil  service 
act  to  the  revenue  service.43  Congress  may  use  all  known  and 
appropriate  means  for  collecting  and  disbursing  the  revenue,43 
and  may  provide  for  the  protection  of  revenue  collectors  and 
officers,44  and  in  case  of  the  death  of  a  collector  may  provide 
that  the  government  shall  be  the  first  paid  out  of  his  estate.45 

As  an  incident  to  its  power  to  carry  on  war  Congress  had 
power  to  suspend  the  operation  of  the  statute  of  limitations 
during  the  Eebellion;46  to  pass  the  nonintercourse  acts;47  to 
enact  pension  laws  and  provide  a  penalty  for  fraud  committed 

3G  The  City  of  Salem,  13  Saw.  612,  37  Fed.  S50. 

37  Benner  v.  Dredging  Co.,  134  N.  Y.  163,  30  Am.  St.  Rep.  654, 
31  N.  E.  330,  17  L.  R,  A.  220. 

38  United  States  v.  Boyer,  85  Fed.  429. 

39  In  re  Quarles,  158  U.  S.  537,  15  S.  Ct.  961,  39  L.  ed.  1080. 

40  In  re  Meador,  1  Abb.  IT.  S.  334,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9375. 

41  In  re  Piatt,  7  Ben.  272,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,211. 

42  Butler  v.  White,  83  Fed.  581. 

43  Murray  v.  Hoboken  etc.  Co.,  18  How.  272,  15  L.  ed.  372. 

44  Dugan  v.  United  States,  3  Wheat.  179,  4  L.  ed.  362;  United 
States  v.  Bevians,  3  Wheat.  388,  4  L.  ed.  404;  The  Exchange  v.  Mc- 
Fadden,  7  Cr.  116,  3  L.  ed.  287;  United  States  v.  Tingey,  5  Pet,  115r 
8  L.  ed.  66. 

45  Commonwealth   v.  Lewis,   6   Binn.  266. 

4G  Stewart  v.  Kahn,  11  Wall.  507,  20  L.  ed.  176. 
47   Hamilton  v.  Dillin,  21  Wall.  93,  22  L.  ed.  528. 


217  Incidental  Powers.        Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  18 

under  them;48  to  provide  for  compulsory  enlistment;49  to  pro- 
vide for  the  confiscation  of  enemies'  property;50  to  provide  for 
the  removal  to  federal  courts,  of  suits  for  acts  done  under  the 
President's  authority  during  the  Rebellion,31  and  to  authorize 
the  President  to  suspend  the  privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas 
corpus.52  In  aid  of  its  power  to  pass  bankruptcy  laws  Congress 
may  provide  for  the  punishment  of  persons  guilty  of  fraud  in 
the  disposition  of  a  debtor's  goods,53  and  provide  for  composi- 
tions with  creditors.54  Under  the  same  power  the  district 
courts  may  be  empowered  to  transfer  the  franchises  of  insolvent 
railroad  companies.55  Congress  may  also  make  the  United 
States  a  preferred  creditor  in  cases  of  insolvency.56 

In  the  exercise  of  its  powers  to  make  all  laws  necessary  and 
proper  for  carrying  into  execution  its  enumerated  powers  Con- 
gress may  incorporate  a  bank.57 

National  banks  being  designed  to  aid  the  government,  Con- 
gress is  the  sole  judge  of  the  necessity  for  creating  them.58  A. 
law  fixing  the  rate  of  interest  to  be  charged  by  such  banks  is 
constitutional,59  as  is  a  law  prescribing  a  penalty  for  taking 
usurious  interest.60  Any  act  tending  to  promote  the  efficiency 
of  such  banks  is  valid;61  e.  g.,  a  provision  calculated  to  secure 

48  United  States  v.  Fairehilds,  1  Abb.  U.  S.  77,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,067; 
United  States  v.  Marks,  2  Abb.  U.  S.  535,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,721. 

49  Antrim's  Case,  1  Fed.  Cas.  1065;  Ex  parte  Coupland,  26  Tex. 
417. 

CO  Norris  v.  Doniphan,  4  Met.   (Ky.)  409. 

51  Tod  v.  Court  of  Common  Pleas,  15  Ohio  St.  387. 

52  McCall  v.  McDowell,  1  Abb.  U.  S.  229,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8673. 

53  United  States  v.  Pusey,  6  Bank.  Reg.  288,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,098. 

54  In  re  Reiman,  7  Ben.  466,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,673. 

55  Sweatt  v.  Boston  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  3  Cliff.  352,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,684. 

56  United  States  v.  Fisher,  2  Cr.  395,  2  L.  ed.  304;  United  States 
v.  Bank  of  North  Carolina,  6  Pet.  35,  8  L.  ed.  308. 

5T  McCulloch  v.  Maryland,  4  Wiheat.  411,  4  L.  ed.  579. 

58  Farmers'  etc.  Bank  v.  Dearing,  91  U.  S.  33,  23  L.  ed.  196; 
Osborne  v.  United  States  Bank,  9  Wheat.  738,  6  L.  ed.  204. 

59  Central  Bank  v.  Pratt,  115  Mass.  439,  15  Am.  Rep.  138. 

60  Farmers'  National  Bank  v.  Dearing,  91  U.  S.  37,  23  L.  ed.  196. 

61  Chesapeake  Bank  v.  First  Nat.  Bank,  40  Md.  269,  17  Am.  Rep. 
601. 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  IS        Incidental  Powers.  218 

the  safety  of  remittances,62  or  an  act  limiting  the  right  of  the 
states  to  tax  national  banks.63  The  power  to  make  treasury 
notes  legal  tender  is  not  expressly  given  to  Congress,  but  the 
power  exists  and  is  attributable  to  the  power  to  borrow  money 
on  the  credit  of  the  United  States,  and  to  regulate  the  cur- 
rency.64 The  power  has  been  declared  to  be  incident  to  the 
war  power,65  and  to  be  incident  to  the  general  powers  of  Con- 
gress;66 but  the  authority  is  now  finally  declared  to  be  derived 
from  the  power  to  regulate  the  currency.67 

Congress  may  create,  define  and  punish  crimes  or  offenses 
when  necessary  for  effectuating  the  objects  of  government.68 
The  power  to  punish  offenses  is  incidental  to  constitutional 
powers  of  sovereignty.69  The  alteration  of  registered  United 
States  bonds  may  be  made  a  crime  against  the  United  States 
and  be  punished  as  such;70  also  the  passing  of  counterfeit  na- 
tional bank  bills;71  the  conspiring  to  injure  prisoners  in  the 
custody  of  a  United  States  marshal  ;72  bringing  into  the  country 

62  United  States  v.  Fisher,  2  Cr.  386,  2  L.  ed.  304. 

63  Talbot  v.  Silver  Bow  County,  139  TJ.  S.  440,  11  S.  Ct.  595,  35 
L.  ed.  210;  People  v.  Weaver,  100  U.  S.  543,  25  L.  ed.  705. 

64  The  Legal  Tender  Cases,  12  Wall.  553,  20  L.  ed.  287;  Juillard 
v.  Greenraan,  110  U.  S.  438,  4  S.  Ct.  125,  28  L.  ed.  204;  Sohollen- 
berger  v.  Brinton,  52  Pa.  St.  35;  Metropolitan  Bank  v.  Van  Dyck,  27 
N.  Y.  409. 

05  Lick  v.  Faulkner,  25  Cal.  418,  419;  George  v.  Concord,  45  N. 
H.  438. 

oo  Maynard  v.  Newman,  1  Nev.  278;  Milliken  v.  Sloat,  1  Nev.  585. 

67  Juillard  v.  Greenman,  110  U.  S.  438,  439,  4  S.  Ct.  125,  126,  28 
L.  ed.  204. 

68  United  States  v.  Worrall,  2  Dall.  384,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,766; 
United  States  v.  Marigold,  9  How.  567,  13  L.  ed.  257;  United  States 
v.  Hall,  98  U.  S.  357,  25  L.  ed.  180. 

69  McCulloch  v.  Maryland,  4  Wheat.  420,  4  L.  ed.  579. 

70  Ex  parte  Carll,  106  U.  S.  523,  1  S.  Ct.  536,  27  L.  ed.  288. 

71  Ex  parte  Houghton,  7  Fed.  658,  8  Fed.  897. 

72  Logan  v.  United  States,  144  U.  S.  283,  12  S.  Ct.  622,  36  L.  ed.  429. 


219  Incidental  Powers.        Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  18 

counterfeit  foreign  coins.73  There  is  a  peace  of  the  United 
States  for  the  breach  of  which  Congress  may  provide  a  penalty.74 
Congress  may  also  make  all  laws  necessary  for  carrying  into 
execution  the  judgments  of  federal  courts,75  and  having  the 
power  to  make  such  laws  may  proceed  under  them  to  satisfy  a 
judgment  in  favor  of  the  government.76  This  power  of  regu- 
lating proceedings  may  be  delegated  by  Congress  to  the  courts 
themselves.77  So  also  when  a  territory  is  admitted  as  a  state, 
Congress  may  designate  the  court  to  which  records  shall  be 
transferred  and  prescribe  the  mode  for  enforcement  and  review 
of  judgments.78 

Other  instances  in  which  this  incidental  power  has  been  held 
to  have  been  validly  exercised  are :  acts  prohibiting  the  mail- 
ing of  letters  or  circulars  concerning  lotteries,  as  incident  to  the 
power  to  establish  postoffices  and  post-roads;79  acts  providing 
for  the  lease  of  public  lands  as  incident  to  the  power  to  "dis- 
pose of"  such  lands;80  acts  providing  for  the  condemnation  of 
lands  for  various  purposes  of  government;81  acts  providing  for 
the  distraint  of  property  to  satisfy  a  federal  tax;82  acts  pro- 

73  United  States  v.  Marigold,  9  How.  567,  13  L.  ed.  257.- 

74  In  re,  Neagle,  135  U.  S.  60,  10  S.  Ct.  658,  34  L.  ed.  55;  In  re 
Quarles,  158  U.  S.  535,  15  S.  Ct.  959,  39  L.  ed.  1080. 

75  Bank  of  United  States  v.  Halstead,  10  Wheat.  53,  6  L.  ed.  264; 
Bank  v.  Thompson,  173  111.  599,  64  Am.  St.  Eep.  140,  50  N.  E.  1090. 

76  United  States  v.  Drennen,  Hemp.  325,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,992. 

77  Wayman  v.  Southard,  10  Wheat.  1,  6  L.  ed.  253;  Bank  of  United 
States  v.  Halstead,  10  Wheat.  53,  6  L.  ed.  264. 

'<8  Express  Company  v.  Kountze,  8  Wall.  350,  19  L.  ed.  457;  Hunt 
v.  Palao,  4  How.  590,  11  L.  ed.  1115;  Koenigsberger  v.  Bichmond 
Silver  Min.  Co.,  158  U.  S.  49,  15  S.  Ct.  751,  39  L.  ed.  889. 

79  Ex  parte  Jackson,  96  U.  S.  732,  24  L.  ed.  877,  affirming  14 
Blatchf.  250.  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7124;  In  re  Rapier,  143  U.  S.  133,  12  S. 
Ct.  374,  36  L.  ed.  93. 

80  United  States  v.  Gratiot,  14  Pet.  537,  10  L.  ed.  573. 

81  Kohl  v.  United  States,  91  U.  S.  373,  23  L.  ed.  449;  United  States 
v.  Fox,  94  U.  S.  320,  24  L.  ed.  192;  Van  Brocklin  v.  Tennessee,  117 
U.  S.  154,  6  S.  Ct.  670,  29  L.  ed.  845;  Cherokee  Nation  v.  Kansas  Ry. 
Co.,  135  U.  S.  656,  10  S.  Ct.  965,  34  L.  ed.  295;  Luxton  v.  North 
Eiver  Bridge  Co.,  153  U.  S.  529,  14  S.  Ct.  891,  38  L.  ed.  808. 

82.  Springer  v.  United  States,  102  U.  S.  593,  26  L.  ed.  253;  Schenck 
v.  Peay,  21  Fed.  Cas.  682. 


Art.  I,  §  8,  CI.  18        Incidental  Powers.  220 

viding  for  extensions  of  patent  rights  as  incident  to  the  power 
to  encourage  inventions;83  an  act  levying  a  tax  on  state  bank 
notes  in  circulation  as  incident  to  the  power  to  regulate  the 
currency;84  an  act  to  protect  homesteads  on  public  lands.85 

S3  Bloomer  v.  Stolley,  5  McLean,  161,  Fed.   Cas.  No.  1559. 

84  Veazie  Bank  v.  Fenno,  8  Wall.  533,  19  L.  ed.  482, 

85  United  States   v.  Waddcll,   112  U.  S.   70,  5  S.  Ct.  35,  28  L.  ed. 
673. 


221  Migration.  Art.  I,  §  9,  CI.  1 


SECTION"  9. 

LIMITATION"  OF  THE  POWERS  OF  CONGRESS. 

1.  Migration  or  importation  of  persons. 

2.  Habeas  corpus  not  to  be  suspended. 

3.  Attainder  and   ex   post   facto   laws  prohibited. 

4.  Capitation  and   direct  taxes. 

5.  Taxation  on  exports. 

6.  Commercial  regulations. 

7.  Public    moneys   and   accounts. 

8.  Titles  of  nobility.     Presents,  offices,  etc. 

1.  The  migration  or  importation  of  such  persons 
as  any  of  the  States  now  existing  shall  think  proper 
to  admit,  shall  not  be  prohibited  by  the  Congress 
prior  to  the  year  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and 
eight,  but  a  tax  or  duty  may  be  imposed  on  such  im- 
portation, not  exceeding  ten  dollars  for  each  person. 

The  several  clauses  of  this  section  impose  limitations  upon 
the  powers  of  Congress  and  were  not  intended  to  apply  to  the 
state  governments.1  The  first  clause  is  a  restriction  upon  the 
general  power  to  regulate  commerce;2  but  while  it  is  to  be 
deemed  a  limitation  upon  a  power  already  granted,  rather  than 
a  grant  of  power,  members  of  the  constitutional  convention  rec- 
ognized that  it  was  designed  to  confer  upon  Congress  power  to 

l  Munn  v.  Illinois,  94  U.  S.  135,  24  L.  ed.  113;  Morgan  v.  Louisi- 
ana Board  of  Health,  US  U.  S.  467,  6  S.  Ct.  1120,  23  L.  ed.  SCO; 
Johnson  v.  Chicago  etc.  Elevator  Co.,  119  U.  S.  400,  7  S.  Ct.  260,  30 
L.  ed.  447;  Butler  v.  Hopper,  1  Wash.  C.  C.  499,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2241. 

'2,  Passenger  Cases,  7  How.  401,  12  L.  ed.  702;  Gibbons  v.  Ogden, 
9  Wheat.  216,  6  L.  ed.  23;  Wilson  v.  United  States,  1  Brock.  423,  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  17,846;  United  States  v.  Libby,  1  Wood.  &  M.  235,  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  15,597. 


Art.  I,  §  9,  CI.  1  M  [ORATION.  222 

abolish  the  slave  trade  from  the  period  limited,3  and  an  act 
of  Congress  having  that  object  was  later  upheld.4 

In  People  v.  Compagnie  Gen.  Trans.,  107  U.  S.  62,  2  S.  Ct. 
87,  27  L.  ed.  383,  the  supreme  court  declared  that  there  has 
never  been  any  doubt  that  the  first  clause  of  this  section  refers 
only  to  persons  of  the  African  race,  and  that  the  words  "migra- 
tion" and  "importation"  refer  to  the  different  conditions  of  this 
race  as  regards  freedom  and  slavery.5  "Importation"  had  al- 
ways been  applied  to  property  and  things  as  contradistinguished 
from  persons,  and  as  the  framers  of  the  constitution  were  un- 
willing to  use  the  word  "slaves,"  and  described  them  as  "per- 
sons," it  was  necessary  to  use  the  word  "migration"  as  applied 
to  them.6  Notwithstanding  the  early  dictum  that  "migration" 
applies  to  voluntary  as  well  as  involuntary  arrivals,7  the  clause 
has  finally  been  restricted  in  its  application  to  the  African  race, 
referring  the  term  "migration"  to  free  negroes  coming  into  the 
country,  and  "importation"  to  slaves.8 

3  Madison  Papers,  pp.  1388-1673;  Documentary  Hist.  Const.,  vol. 
Ill,  pp.  606,  616,  713,  726;  Passenger  Cases,  7  How.  512,  12  L.  ed.  702. 

4  Groves  v.  Slaughter,  15  Pet.  514,  10  L.  ed.  800;  and  see  United 
States  v.  Preston,  3  Pet.  65,  7  L.  ed.  601;  Savory  v.  Caroline,  20 
Ala.  19. 

6  See,  also,  Dred  Scott  v.  Sandford,  19  How.  393,  15  L.  ed.  691 ;  and 
opinion  of  Taney,  C.  J.,  Passenger  Cases,  7  How.  475,  476,  12  L.  ed. 
702. 

6  Taney,  C.  J.,  in  Passenger  Cases,  7  How.  476,  12  L.  ed.  702;  Doc- 
umentary Hist.  Const.,  vol.  I,  pp.  476,  616;  but  see  Gibbons  v.  Ogden, 
9  Wheat.  216,  6  L.  ed.  23,  especially  opinion  of  Johnson,  J.,  at  p.  230. 

7  Gibbons  v.  Ogden,  9  Wheat.  216,  6  L.  ed.  23. 

8  People  v.  Compagnie  Gen.  Trans.,  107  U.  S.  62,  2  S.  Ct.  87,  27 
L.    ed.    383. 


£23  Privilege  of  Habeas  Corpus.      Art.  I,  §  9,  CI.  2 

2.  The  privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  shall 
not  be  suspended,  unless  when  in  cases  of  rebellion  or 
invasion  the  public  safety  may  require  it. 

Nature  of  Writ. 

The  writ  of  habeas  corpus  here  referred  to  is  the  writ  ad  sub- 
jiciendum.1 It  is  a  writ  of  right,2  but  not  a  writ  of  course, 
since  cause  must  be  shown  for  its  issuance.3  The  object  of  the 
writ  is  to  determine  whether  a  prisoner  can  be  lawfully  de- 
tained;4 to  protect  against  unwarranted  encroachments  upon 
personal  liberty,5  and  the  proceedings  under  the  writ  are  to  be 
deemed  civil  rather  than  criminal,  in  which  the  civil  right  of 
personal  liberty  is  asserted.6  "Habeas  corpus"  is  a  generic 
term  and  includes  every  species  of  that  writ,  but  when  used  as 
in  this  clause,  "the  writ  of  habeas  corpus"  means  the  writ  ad 
subjiciendum,7  and  if.  as  so  used,  it  had  a  well-known  meaning, 
the  framers  of  the  constitution  must  have  had  reference  to  that 
meaning.8 

Suspension  of  the  Privilege. 

The  suspension  of  the  privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus 

i  The  Santissima  Trinidad,  7  Wheat.  305,  5  L.  ed.  454;  Martin 
v.  Mott,  12  Wheat.  29,  6  L.  ed.  537;  Luther  v.  Borden,  7  How.  1,  12 
L.  ed.  581;  Fleming  v.  Page,  9  How.  615,  13  L.  ed.  276. 

2  Yates  v.  Lansing,  5  Johns.  282. 

3  Ex  parte  Watkins,  3  Pet.  201,  7  L.  ed.  650;  Ex  parte  Milligan,  4 
Wall.  110,  18  L.  ed.  281;  Ex  parte  Terry,  128  U.  S.  301,  9  S.  Ct.  209, 
32  L.  ed.  405;  In  re  Boardman  [Durrant],  169  U.  S.  43,  18  S.  Ct.  291, 
42  L.  ed.  653;  In  re  Hacker,  73  Fed.  467;  State  v.  Goss,  73  Minn.  127, 
75  N.  W.  1132;  Ex  parte  Deny,  10  Dev.  214. 

4  Ekiu  v.  United  States,  142  U.  S.  662,  12  S.  Ct.  338,  35  L.  ed.  1146. 

5  In  re  Bonner,  151  U.  S.  259,  14  S.  Ct.  323,  3S  L.  ed.  149. 

C  Farnsworth  v.  Montana,  129  U.  S.  113,  9  S.  Ct.  253,  32  L.  ed.  616; 
Ex  parte  Tom  Tong,  108  U.  S.  560,  2  S.  Ct.  871,  27  L.  ed.  811;  Kurtz 
v.  Moffitt,  115  U.  S.  494,  6  S.  Ct.  148,  29  L.  ed.  458. 

7  Ex  parte  Bollman,  4  Cr.  95,  2  L.  ed.  554. 

8  Cakler  v.  Bull,  3  Dall.  386,  1  L.  ed.  386;  Watson  v.  Mercer,  8  Pet. 
88,  8  L.  ed.  876;  Carpenter  v.  Pennsylvania,  17  How.  456,  15  L.  ed. 
127;  United  States  v.  Wilson,  7  Pet.  150,  8  L.  ed.  640;  United  States 
v,  Harris,  1  Abb.  U.  S.  115,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,312. 


Art.  I,  §  9,  CI.  2      Privilege  of  Habeas  Coepus.  224 

does  not  suspend  the  writ  itself.9  It  is  the  privilege  of  having 
the  writ  issued  and  the  case  heard  and  disposed  of,  that  is 
here  referred  to.10  The  suspension  merely  denies  to  one  ar- 
rested the  privilege  of  obtaining  his  liberty  by  means  of  the 
writ;11  it  does  not  affect  the  duty  of  a  court  to  issue  the  writ,12 
but  requires  the  dismissal  of  the  writ  upon  its  return,  without 
inquiry  as  to  the  merits.13  Accordingly  Congress  cannot  forbid 
the  issue  of  the  writ  by  a  state  court,14  but  may  provide  that 
an  officer  shall  not  be  liable  for  an  arrest  made  while  the  privi- 
lege of  the  writ  is  suspended.15  This  suspension  is  tantamount 
to  an  express  direction  to  arrest  and  imprison  all  persons  who 
may  be  dangerous  to  the  commonwealth.16 

The  constitutional  guaranty  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  nec- 
essarily implies  judicial  action,17  and  the  necessity  for  suspend- 
ing the  privilege  of  the  writ  must  be  actual  and  present,  the 
invasion  real;  threatened  invasion  is  not  sufficient,18  and  the 
courts  will  take  judicial  notice  of  the  close  of  the  liebellion  and 
with  it  the  end  of  the  suspension  of  the  writ.19 

A  distinction  is  to  be  drawn  between  the  suspension  of  the 
writ  under  this  clause  and  the  ipso  facto  suspension  which  takes 
place  when  martial  law  actually  exists.20  Martial  law  is  the 
law  of  military  necessity  in  the  actual  presence  of  war;21  it 
finds  its  justification  only  where,  from  actual  necessity  or  civil 
war,  the  courts  are  closed,  and  it  is  impossible  to  administer 

9  Ex  parte  Milligan,  4  Wall.  130,  ]8  L.  ed.  281. 

10  Macready  v.  Wilcox,  33  Conn.  321. 

li    Ex  parte  Milligan,  4  Wall.  115,  18  L.  ed.  281. 

12  Ex  parte  Milligan,  4  Wall.  130,  18  L.  ed.  281. 

13  Ex  parte  Vallandingham,  1  Wall.  243,  17  L.  ed.  589;  Kulp  v. 
Rieketts,  3  Grant,  420;  Ex  parte  Fagan,  2  Sprague,  91,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
4604;  Ex  parte  Dunn,  25  How.  Pr.  467. 

14  Griffin  v.  Wilcox,  21  Ind.  370;  Kneedler  v.  Lane,  45  Pa.  St.  238. 

15  McCall  v.  McDowell,  Deady,  233,  1  Abb.  U.  S.  212,  Fed.  Cas. 
No.   8673. 

16  McCall  v.  McDowell,  1  Abb.  TJ.  S.  212,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8673. 

17  Ex  parte  Yerger,  8  Wall.  95,  19  L.  ed.  332. 

18  Ex  parte  Milligan,  4  Wall.  127,  18  L.  ed.  281. 

19  Cozzens   v.  Frink,  13  Am.   L.  Reg.   700. 

20  In  re  Kemp,  16  Wis.  359. 

21  United  States  v.  Diekelman,  92  U.  S.  526,  23  L.  ed.  742. 


225  Privilege  of  Habeas  Corpus.       Art.  I,  §  9,  CI.  2 

justice  according  to  law,22  and  its  duration  is  limited  by  its 
necessity.23  In  this  connection  "martial  law"  must  not  be  con- 
founded with  "military  law"  or  with  "military  government.'' 
Military  law  consists  of  rules  prescribed  by  Congress  for  the 
government  of  the  army  and  navy,  and  applies  only  to  persons 
in  the  military  or  naval  service,24  while  military  government  is 
the  dominion  exercised  in  war  over  the  territory  and  inhabi- 
tants of  an  enemy's  country  upon  its  conquest  and  occupation.23 

Power  to  Suspend  Privilege. 

Tinder  this  clause  Congress  alone  has  power  to  authorize 
the  suspension  of  the  privilege  of  the  writ.20  But  direct  enact- 
ment by  Congress  is  not  necessary;  the  President  may  be  author- 
ized to  suspend  the  privilege  when  in  his  judgment  the  public 
safety  so  requires.27  The  Secretary  of  War  has  no  authority  to 
suspend  the  privilege  of  the  writ,28  nor  has  the  commander  of 
a  military  district.29  This  clause  confers  a  discretionary  power 
to  be  exercised  upon  an  opinion  of  certain  facts,  and  carries 
also  the  exclusive  power  to  judge  as  to  the  existence  of  those 
facts.30 

22  Ex  parte  Milligan,  4  Wall.  127,  18  L.  ed.  281;  Winter  v.  Dicker- 
son,  42  Ala.  98. 

23  Ex  parte  Milligan,  4  Wall.  127,  18  L.  ed.  281;  Milligan  v.  Hovey} 
3  Biss.  IS,  Fed  Cas.  No.  9605;  Johnson  v.  Jones,  44  111.  142,  92  Am. 
Dee.  159. 

24  Ex  parte  Milligan,  4  Wall.  123,  18  L.  ed.  281;  Johnson  v.  Jones. 
44  111.  142,  92  Am.  Dec.  159. 

25  Coleman  v.  Tennessee,  97  U.  S.  517,  24  L.  ed.  1118;  Ex  parte 
Ortiz,  100  Fed.  955;  Cronin  v.  Patrick  County,  89  Fed.  79. 

20  Ex  parte  Bollman,  4  Cr.  75,  2  L.  ed.  554;  Ex  parte  Merrymau. 
Taney,  246,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9487;  Jones  v.  Seward,  3  Grant,  431; 
Griffin  v.  Wilcox,  21  Ind.  370;  In  re  Kemp,  16  Wis.  359. 

27  Ex  paite  Milligan,  4  Wall.  114,  18  L.  ed.  281;  McCall  v.  Mc- 
Dowell, 1  Abb.  U.  S.  212,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8673;  In  re  Oliver,  17  Wis. 
681. 

2S  Ex  parte  Field,  5  Blatchf.  63,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4761. 

29  Ex  parte  Field,  5  Blatchf.  63,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4761;  Johnson 
v.  Duncan,  3  Mart.  530,  6  Am.  Dec.  675. 

30  Martin  v.  Mott,  12  Wheat.  31,  6  L.  ed.  537;  Luther  v.  Borden, 
7  How.  44,  12  L.  ed.  581;  Ex  parte  Milligan,  4  Wall.  114,  18  L.  ed. 
2S1;  United  States  v.  Packages,  27  Fed.  Cas.  No.  288;  Ex  parto 
Merryman,  Taney,  246,  Fed.   Cas.  No.  9487. 

Notes  on  Constitution — 15 


Art.  I,  §  9,  CI.  3  Bills  or  Attainder.  226 

3.  No  bill  of  attainder  or  ex  post  facto  law  shall  be 
passed. 

Bill  of  Attainder.* 

This  clause,  while  comprehensive  in  its  language,  applies  only 
to  the  general  government  and  contains  no  restriction  on  state 
legislation.1  A  bill  of  attainder  is  a  legislative  act  which  in- 
flicts punishment  without  a  judicial  trial.2  The  term  em- 
braces bills  of  pains  and  penalties.3  and  legislation  is  none  the 
less  objectionable  in  that  it  merely  confiscates  property ;  it  may 
affect  the  life  of  an  individual,  or  confiscate  his  property,  or 
both  ;4  nor  is  it  material  that  the  infliction  of  punishment  is  con- 
ditional.5 The  framers  of  the  constitution  must  be  deemed  to 
have  had  in  mind  the  meaning  commonly  given  to  the  terms 
"bill  of  attainder"  and  "ex  post  facto  law"  at  that  time.6 

The  object  of  this  clause  is  to  secure  the  rights  of  citizens 
against  deprivation  for  past  conduct  by  legislative  enactment  in 
any  form,  however  disguised.7  Laws  requiring  the  assumption 
of  a  test-oath,  and  operating  to  exclude  a  citizen  from  any  pro- 
fession or  avocation  for  past  conduct,  are  objectionable  as  bills 
of  pains  and  penalties  prohibited  by  this  clause;8  e.  g.,  laws 

1  Barron  v.  Baltimore,  7  Pet.  248,  8  L.  ed.  672. 

2  Cummings  v.  Missouri,  4  Wall.  323,  18  L.  ed.  356;  Ex  part.? 
Garland,  4  Wall.  377,  18  L.  ed.  366;  In  re  De  Giacomo,  12  Blatcfof. 
401,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3747;  In  re  Leszynski,  16  Blatchf.  19,  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  8279. 

3  Drehman  v.  Stifle,  8  Wall.  601,  19  L.  ed.  508;  In  re  Yang  Sing, 
13  Saw.  485,  36  Fed.  439;  Norris  v.  Doniphan,  4  Met.   (Ky.)   434. 

4  Fletcher  v.  Peck,  6  Cr.  138,  3  L.  ed.  162;  Ex  parte  Law,  35  Ga. 
302;  In  re  Shorter,  22  Fed.  Cas.  19;  Myers  v.  Sanders,  7  Dana,  519. 

5  Gaines  v.  Buford,  1  Dana,  510. 

6  Caluer  v.  Bull,  3  Dall.  386,  1  L.  ed.  3>86;  United  States  v.  Wilson, 
7  Pet.  150,  8  L.  ed.  640;  Watson  v.  Mercer,  8  Pet.  88,  8  L.  ed.  876; 
United  States  v.  Harris,  1  Abb.  U.  S.  115,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,312; 
Carpenter  v.  Pennsylvania,  17  How.  463,  15  L.  ed.  127. 

7  Cummings   v.   Missouri,  4  Wall.   277,  18  L.   ed.  356. 

8  Cummings  v.  Missouri,  4  Wall.  323,  18  L.  ed.  356;  Ex  parte 
Garland,  4  Wall.  377,  18  L.  ed.  366;  Pierce  v.  Carskadon,  16  Wall. 
239.  21  L.  ed.  276;  Klinger  v.  Missouri,  13  Wall.  257,  20  L.  ed.  tj;J5. 

*~See  also,  art.  I,  §  10,  cl.  1. 


227  PJx  Post  Facto  Laws.        Art.  I,  §  9,  CI.  3 

excluding  from  the  right  to  practice  attorneys  who  participated 
in  the  war  of  the  Rebellion.9  A  statute  making  the  nonpayment 
of  taxes  evidence  of  participation  in  Rebellion,  and  forfeiting 
land  absolutely  without  judicial  hearing  is  a  bill  of  attainder;10 
but  not  a  statute  providing  for  a  forfeiture  for  violating  the  in- 
ternal revenue  laws;11  nor  a  statute  imposing  a  forfeiture  of 
citizenship  for  continuance  of  desertion  after  proclamation  and 
trial  by  court-martial  to  enforce  the  peaalty.12  An  act  pre- 
cluding Chinese  who  are  United  States  citizens  from  returning 
to  the  country  is  objectionable  under  this  clause.13  A  provision 
exempting  persons  from  liability  for  acts  done  under  military 
authority  during  the  Civil  War    is  not  a  bill  of  attainder.14 

Ex  Post  Facto  laws.* 


As  stated  above,  this  clause  applies  only  to  Congress  and  con- 
tains no  restriction  upon  state  legislation.15  Every  law  that 
makes  an  act  done  before  the  passage  of  the  law,  and  which  was 
innocent  when  done,  criminal,  or  that  aggravates  a  crime  or 
makes  it  greater  than  it  was  when  committed,  or  that  changes 
the  punishment  and  inflicts  a  greater  punishment  than  the  law 
annexed  to  the  crime  when  committed,  or  that  alters  the  rules 
of  evidence,  permitting  less  or  different  evidence  to  convict  a 
person  of  an  offense  committed  prior  to  its  passage,  is  an  ex  post 
facto  law,  and  within  the  prohibition  of  this  clause.16 

9  Ex  parte  Garland,  4  Wall.  377,  18  L.  ed.  366. 

10  Martin  v.  Snowden,  18  Gratt.  100. 

ii  United  States  v.  Distillery,  2  Abb.  U.  S.  192,  Fed.  Gas.  No. 
14,965. 

12  Gotchens   v.  Matheson,  40  How.  Pr.   97,   58  Barb.   152. 

13  In  re  Yang  Sing  Hee,  13  Saw.  486,  36  Fed.  439. 

14  Drehman  v.  Stifle,  8  Wall.  601,  602,  19  L.  ed.  508;  Clark  v. 
Pick,  1  Dill.  14,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2818;  Peerce  v.  Kitzmiller,  19  W.  Va. 
573. 

15  Barron  v.  Baltimore,  7  Pet.  248,  8  L.  ed.  672. 

16  Calder  v.  Bull,  3  Dall.  393,  396,  397,  400,  1  L.  ed.  640;  Fletcher 
v.  Peck,  6  Cr.  138,  3  L.  ed.  102;  Watson  v.  Meroer,  8  Pet.  110, 
8  L.  ed.  876;  Cummings  v.  Missouri,  4  Wall.  329,  18  L.  ed.  351;  Ex 
parte   Garland,   4   Wall.   336,   18   L.   ed.   366;   Burgess   v.   Salmon,   97 


See,  also,  art.  I,  §  10,  el.  1. 


Art.  I,  §  9,  CI.  3        Ex  Post  Facto  Laws.  228 

The  prohibition  is  "an  additional  bulwark  in  favor  of  the  per- 
sonal security  of  the  subject";17  and  the  tendency  is  toward  a 
liberal,  rather  than  a  narrow,  construction  in  favor  of  that  se- 
curity,18 and  the  scope  of  the  constitutional  prohibition  has  been 
broadened  beyond  the  definition  laid  down  in  early  cases,  until 
it  includes  any  law  which,  in  relation  to  the  offense  or  its  con- 
sequences, alters  the  situation  of  the  party  to  his  disadvantage.19 
So  a  statute  purporting  to  validate  a  punishment  otherwise  il- 
legal is  ex  post  facto;20  but  a  law  imposing  forfeiture  of  citizen- 
ship for  continuance  of  desertion  after  assurance  of  pardon  is 
not;21  nor  is  an  extradition  treaty  which  applies  to  crimes  com- 
mitted before  it  was  entered  into.22 

TJ.  S.  382,  24  L.  ed.  1104;  In  re  De  Giacomo,  12  Blatchf.  401,  Fed. 
Gas.  No.  3747;  Eeynolds  v.  State,  1  Ga.  228;  Strong  v.  State,  1 
Blackf.  197;  Walston  v.  Commonwealth,  16  B.  Mon.  37;  State  v. 
Johnson,  12  Minn.  484,  93  Am.  Dec.  247;  State  v.  Garesche,  36  Mo. 
259;  Woart  v.  Winnick,  3  N.  H.  473,  14  Am.  Dec.  385;  State  v. 
Moore,  42  N.  J.  L.  228;  Dickinson  v.  Dickinson,  3  Murph.  (N.  C.) 
330,  9  Am.  Dec.  609;  Shepherd  v.  People,  25  N.  Y.  406;  Ex  parte 
Hunter,  2  W.  Va.  159. 

17  Calder  v.  Bull,  3  Dal!.  390,  2  L.  ed.  648. 

18  Cummin gs  v.  Missouri,  4  Wall.  277,  18  L.  ed.  356;  Ex  parte 
Garland,  4  Wa-ll.  333,  18  L.  ©d.  366;  Kring  v.  Missouri,  107  U.  S. 
221,  2  S.  Ct.  443,  27  L.  ed.  506;  Moore  v.  State,  43  N.  J.  L.  214, 
39  Am.  Eep.  568;  Anderson  v.  Baker,  23  Md.  566. 

19  Kring  v.  Missouri,  107  U.  S.  232,  2  S.  Ct.  449,  27  L.  ed.  506; 
Medley,  Petitioner,  134  U.  S.  771,  10  S.  Ct.  387,  33  L.  ed.  835; 
Thompson  v.  Utah,  170  U.  S.  351,  IS  S.  Ct.  623,  42  L.  ed.  1061;  In 
re  Murphy,  87  Fed.  551;  Johnson  v.  People,  173  111.  134,  50  N.  E. 
3i22;  Murphy  v.  Commonwealth,  172  Mass.  260,  70  Am.  St.  Eep.  271, 
52  N.  E.  507,  43  L.  B.  A.  154;  Lindzey  v.  State,  65  Miss.  545,  7  Am. 
St.  Eep.  676,  5  South.  100;  Marion  v.  State,  16  Neb.  354,  20  N.  W. 
291. 

20  In  re  Murphy,  1  Woolw.  141,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9947. 

21  Gotchens  v.  Matheson,  40  How.  Pr.  97,  58  Barb.  152. 

22  Ex  parte  De  Giacomo,  12  Blatchf.  391,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3747. 


229  Ex  Post  Facto  Laws.        Art.  I,  §  9,  CI.  3 

The  term  "ex  post  facto"  is  applicable  only  to  laws  of  a  penal 
nature,23  imposing  penalties  or  forfeitures.23*  Accordingly  an 
act  of  Congress  protecting  from  civil  process  persons  amenable 
to  prosecution  is  not  objectionable;21  nor  is  a  statute  making 
treasury  notes  a  legal  tender  for  antecedent  debts.25 

While,  however,  the  constitutional  inhibition  is  aimed  at 
criminal  laws,  it  cannot  be  evaded  by  giving  civil  form  to  that 
which  is  in  substance  criminal;20  e.  g.,  a  requirement  that  per- 
sons claiming  certain  civil  rights  take  a  test-oath  denying  partic- 
ipation in  the  Eebellion,27  On  the  other  hand,  a  statute  both 
criminal  and  civil  in  its  nature,  but  which  is  retroactive  only  in 
its  civil  aspect,  is  not  repugnant  to  the  constitution.28  So  a 
statute  taxing  purchases  made  during  the  preceding  year  and 

23  Calder  v.  Bull,  3  Dall.  390-393,  1  L.  ed.  648;  Ogden  v.  Saunders, 
12  Wheat.  266,  6  L.  ed.  606;  Watson  v.  Mercer,  8  Pet.  110,  8  L.  ed. 
876;  Baltimore  etc.  R.  R.  v.  Nesbit,  10  How.  402,  13  L.  ed.  469; 
Carpenter  v.  Pennsylvania,  17  How.  463,  15  L.  ed.  127;  In  re  Sawyer, 
124  U.  S.  219,  S  S.  Ct.  492,  31  L.  ed.  42;  Locke  v.  New  Orleans,  4 
Wall.  172,  18  L.  ed.  334;  Albee  v.  May,  2  Paine,  74,  Fed.  Gas.  No. 
135;  United  States  v.  Gilbert,  2  Sum.  101,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,204; 
Society  v.  WheeleT,  2  Gall.  105,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,156;  Aldridge  v. 
Tuscumbia  etc.  R.  R,,  2  Stew.  &  P.  199,  29  Am.  Dec.  312;  Bridge- 
port v.  Hubbeli,  5  Conn.  240;  Aycock  v.  Martin,  37  Ga.  124;  Boston 
v.  Cummins,  16  Ga.  107,  60  Am.  Dec.  720;.  Coles  v.  Madison  Co., 
Breese,  156,  12  Am.  Dec.  163;  Henderson  etc.  R.  R.  v.  Dickerson,  17 
B.  Mon.  177,  66  Am.  Dec.  149;  Baugher  v.  Nelson,  9  Gill,  299,  52  Am. 
Dec.  698;  Sdott  v.  Smart,  1  Mich.  302;  McCormick  v.  Pickering,  4 
N.  Y.  276;  Grimm  v.  Wiessenberg  Sch.  Dist.,  57  Pa.  St.  435,  98  Am. 
Dec.  239;  Lynn  v.  State,  84  Md.  67,  35  Atl.  22;  People  v.  Howker, 
152  N.  Y.  234,  46  N.  E.  608. 

23a  Locke  v.  New  Orleans,  4  Wall.  173,  18  L.  ed.  334;  United 
States  v.  Hughes,  8  Ben.  29,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,416. 

24  In  re  Murphy,  Woolw.   148,  Fed.   Cas.  No.  9947. 

25  Metropolitan  Bank  v.  Van  Dyek,  27  N.  Y.  400. 

26  Cummings  v.  Missouri,  4  Wall.  328,  18  L.  ed.  356;  Burgess  v. 
Salmon,  97  U.  S.  385,  24  L.  ed.  1104. 

27  Cummings  v.  Missouri,  4  Wall.  323,  18  L.  ed.  356;  Ex  parte 
Garland,  4  Wall.  377,  18  L.  ed.  366;  Pierce  v.  Carskadon,  16  Wall. 
239,  21  L.  ed.  276. 

28  State  v.  Bell,  Phill.  (N.  C.)  81;  State  v.  Paul,  5  R.  I.  190. 


Art.  I,  §  9,  CI.  3.       Ex  Post  Facto  Laws.  230 

providing  a  permit}'  for  failure  to  furnish  information  is  pros- 
pective as  to  its  criminal  operation,29  and  a  statute  prohibit- 
ing sales  of  liquor  is  not  objectionable  because  it  may  operate 
upon  liquors  previously  manufactured.30 

29  State  v.  Bell,  Phill.   (N.  C.)   81. 

30  State  v.  Paul,  5  R.  I.  190. 


231  Capitatiox  and  Direct  TUxes.     Art.  I,  §  9,  CI.  4 

4.  No  capitation  or  other  direct  tax  shall  be  laid, 
unless  in  proportion  to  the  census  or  enumeration  here- 
inbefore directed  to  be  taken.* 

It  was  with  the  idea  that  the  power  of  direct  taxation  should 
be  exercised  only  in  cases  of  "absolute  necessity"  that  the 
iramers  of  the  constitution  inserted  this  clause  limiting  the  tax- 
ing power  of  Congress.1  The  original  draft  of  the  instrument 
did  not  contain  the  words  "or  other  direct  tax";  this  phrase 
was  inserted  to  avoid  any  possible  misconstruction  which  would 
narrow  the  intention.2  A  capitation  tax  is  a  direct  tax,2a  but 
the  term  "direct  taxes"  comprehends  also  taxes  on  land,  and 
taxes  on  personal  property  by  general  valuation.3  A  tax  upon 
property  holders  in  respect  of  their  estates,  real  or  personal,  or 
of  the  rents  therefrom,  which  cannot  be  avoided,  is  a  direct 
tax;  while  a  tax  paid  primarily  by  persons  who  can  shift  the 
burden  upon  others,  or  who  are  not  under  compulsion  to  pay, 
is  an  indirect  tax.4 

A  tax  upon  the  business  of  insurance  companies  is  not  a 
direct  tax,  but  a  duty  or  excise,  and  is  valid;3  so  also  as  to  a 
tax     upon    bank    circulation;6    a    stamp    tax    imposed    upon 

1  Documentary  Hist.  Const.,  vol.  Ill,  p.  578;  Pollock  v.  Farmers' 
L.  &  T.  Co.,  157  U.  S.  547,  15  S.  Ct.  673,  39  L.  ed.  759;  Hyde  v.  Con- 
tinental Trust  Co.,  157  U.  S.  654,  15  S.  Ct.  717,  39  L.  ed.  845. 

2  Documentary  Hist.  Const.,  vol.  Ill,  p.  747. 

2a   Hylton  v.  United  States,  3  Dall.  171,  1  L.  ed.  556. 

3  Veazie  Bank  v.  Fenno,  8^  Wall.  547,  19  L.  ed.  482;  Loughborough 
v.  Blake,  5  Wheat.  335,  5  L.  ed.  98;  Springer  v.  United  States,  102 
U.  S.  602,  26  L.  ed.  253;  Pollock  v.  Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.,  157  U.  S. 
558,  15  S.  Ct.  673,  39  L.  ed  759;  Hyde  v.  Continental  Trust  Co.,  157 
U.  S.  558,  15  S.  Ct.  717,  39  L.  ed.  845;  Pollock  v.  Farmers'  L.  &  T. 
Co.,  158  U.  S.  637,  15  S.  Ct.  912,  39   L.  ed  1108. 

4  Pollock  v.  Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.,  157  U.  S.  558,  15  S.  Ct.  673,  39 
L.  ed.  759;  Hyde  v.  Continental  Trust  Co.,  157  U.  S.  654,  15  S.  Ct. 
717,  39  L.  ed.  845;  Travelers'  Ins.  Co.  v.  Fricke,  99  Wis.  377,  74 
N.  W.  375,  41  L.  R.  A.  557;  High  v.  Coyne,  93  Fed.  451. 

5  Pacific  Ins.  Co.  v.  Soule,  7  Wall.  446,  19  L.  ed.  95. 

6  Veazie  Bank  v.  Fenno,  8  Wall.  547,  19  L.  ed.  482;  Central  etc. 
Bank  v.  United  States,  137  U.  S.  364,  11  S.  Ct.  126,  34  L.  ed.  703. 


See,  also,  art.  I,   §   2,  cl.   3,   as   to   apportionment. 


Art.  I,  §  9,  CI.  4      Capitation  and  Dibect  Taxes.  23? 

board  of  trade  sales,7  and  a  tax  upon  alien  passengers  from  a 
foreign  port.8  A  tax  upon  carriages  is  also  an  excise,  and 
therefore  not  a  direct  tax.9  A  direct  tax,  however,  cannot  be 
taken  out  of  the  constitutional  prohibition  because  of  the  fact 
that  the  particular  form  of  tax  was  unknown  at  the  time  the 
prohibition  was  made.10  All  such  taxes,  whatever  the  form  they 
assume,  must  be  laid  by  the  rule  of  apportionment.11 

A  tax  upon  the  income  of  real  or  personal  property  is  as  much 
a  direct  tax  as  a  tax  imposed  upon  the  property  itself.12  An  in- 
heritance tax  is  not  laid  upon  property  but  is  an  excise  duty  upon 
the  succession  or  devolution,  and  so  not  a  direct  tax,13  and  the 
fact  that  such  a  tax  is  made  a  lien  upon  the  property  trans- 
mitted does  not  change  its  character,  that  being,  merely  an  ap- 
propriate means  of  enforcing  its  collection.14 

A.  tax  levied  on  tobacco  by  a  war  revenue  act  "in  lieu  of  the 
tax  now  imposed  by  law"  is  not  a  direct  tax  within  this  clause.15 
Nor  is  a  tax  imposed  by  such  an  act  direct  because  required  to  be 
measured  by  gross  receipts.16 

7  Nicol  v.  Ames,  173  U.  S.  523,  19  S.  Ct.  522,  43  L.  ed.  736. 

s  Head  Money  Cases,  18  Fed.  135. 

9  Hylton  v.  United  States,  3  Dall.  175,  1  L.  ed.  556. 

io  Pollock  v.  Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.,  158  TJ.  S.  632,  15  S.  Ct.  912, 
39  L.  ed.  1108. 

li  License  Cases,  5  Wall.  471,  18  L.  ed.  497;  De  Treville  v.  Smalls, 
98  U.   S.  517,  25  L.  ed.   174. 

12  Pollock  v.  Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.,  157  TJ.  S.  573,  15  S.  Ot.  673, 
39  L.  ed.  759  (overruling  Soholey  v.  Eew,  23  Wall.  347,  22  L.  ed. 
99,  and  Springer  v.  United  States,  102  U.  S.  602,  26  L.  ed.  233,  upon 
this  point);  Hyde  v.  Continental  Trust  Co.,  157  U.  S.  654,  15  S.  Ct. 
717,  39  L.  ed.  845;  Pollock  v.  Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.,  158  U.  S.  637, 
15  S.  Ct.  912,  39  L.  ed.  1108;  Hancock  v.  Singer  Mfg.  Co.,  62  N.  J.  L. 
343,  41  Atl.  852,  42  L.  E.  A.  852. 

13  Scholcy  v.  Eew,  23  Wall.  346,  22  L.  ed.  99;  Knowlton  v.  Moore, 
178  U.  S.  83,  20  S.  Ct.  747,  44  L.  ed.  960;  Murdock  v.  Ward,  178 
U.  S.  146,  44  L.  ed.  1009;  High  v.  Coyne,  93  Fed.  431;  Stat.-  v. 
Hamlin,  86  Me.  498,  41  Am*.  St.  Eep.  571,  30  Atl.  77;  Minot  v.  Wiu- 
throp,  162  Mass.  118,  38  N.  E.  514;  Gelsthorpe  v.  Furnell,  20  Mont. 
307,  51  Pac.  269;  State  v.  Alston,  94  Tenn.  681,  30  S.  W.  751,  28 
L.  E.  A.  178. 

14  Scholey  v.  Eew,  23  Wall,  347,  22  L.  ed.  99. 

is  Patton  v.  Brady,  184  U.  S.  608,  22  S.  Ct.  493,  46  L.  ed.  713. 
io  Spreckles  etc.  Co.  v.  McClain,  113  Fed.  244. 


233  Export  Duties.  Art.  I,  §  9,  CI.  5 

5.     No  tax  or  duty  shall  be  laid  on  articles  exported 
from  any  State. 

This  clause  is  the  only  positive  prohibition  against  taxation 
by  Congress;  Congress  has  full  power  to  tax  everything  except 
exports,  the  clauses  requiring  uniformity  and  apportionment  not 
being  strictly  limitations  upon  power,  but  merely  prescribing 
modes  of  exercise.1  The  object  of  this  prohibition  was  to  pre- 
clude interference  with  exports  by  Congress.2  A  stamp  tax  im- 
posed on  foreign  bills  of  lading  is  in  effect  a  tax  or  duty  upon 
exports,  and  so  void  ;3  but  an  act  requiring  the  stamping  of  all 
packages  of  tobacco  intended  for  export,  the  object  being  to  pre- 
vent fraud,  is  not  a  tax  upon  exports.4 

The  mere  intention  to  export  does  not  bring  goods  which  are 
still  in  a  factory  within  the  prohibition.5  So  where  spirits  are 
lost  by  evaporation  before  giving  a  bond  for  export,  a  tax  upon 
such  loss  is  not  repugnant  to  this  clause.6  An  act  imposing  a 
tax  upon  goods  sent  out  of  the  state  is  void;7  but  an  act  regulat- 
ing intercourse  with  insurrectionary  states  and  imposing  a  duty 
thereon  is  not  objectionable.8 

1  United  States  v.  Vassar,  5  Wall.  471,  18  L.  ed.  497;  Lane 
County  v.  Oregon,  7  Wall.  77,  19  L.  ed.  101;  Veazie  Bank  v.  Fenno, 
S  Wall.  540,  19  L.  ed.  432;  Pollock  v.  Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.,  157  U.  S. 
557,  15  S.  Ct.  673,  39  L.  ed.  845. 

2  Documentary  Hist.  Const.,  vol.  Ill,  pp.  542-545,  578-580;  Hylton 
v.  United  States,  3  Dall.  171,  1  L.  ed.  556. 

3  Almy  v.  California,  24  How.  174,  16  L.  ed.  644;  Fairbank  v. 
United  States,  181  U.  S.  305,  21  S.  Ct.  648,  45  L.  ed.  862. 

4  Pace  v.  Burgess,  92  U.  S.  376,  23  L.  ed.  657;  Turpin  v.  Burgess, 
117  U.  S.  505,  6  S.  Ct.  835,  29  L.  ed.  988;  Burwell  v.  Burgess,  32 
Gratt.  478. 

5  Turpin  v.  Burgess,  117  U.  S.  507,  6  S.  Ct.  836,  29  L.  ed.  988; 
Myers  v.  Baltimore  County,  83  Md.  392,  55  Am.  St.  Eep.  354,  35  Atl. 
146,  34  L.  R.  A.  309. 

6  Thompson  v.  United  States,  142  U.  S.  478,  12  S.  Ct.  299,  35 
L.  ed.  1084;  Chrystal  Spring  etc.  Co.  v.  Cox,  49  Fed.  561. 

7  Commonwealth  v.  Delaware  etc.  fly.,  1  Pearson,  356;  Common- 
wealth v.  Erie  Ey.,  1  Pearson,  345;  Commonwealth  v.  Pennsylvania 
etc.  Ey.,  1  Pearson,  379. 

8  Folsom  v.  United  States,  4  Ct.  of  CI.  366. 


Art.  [,.§  !».  CI.  (J       Preferences  to  Ports.  234 

6.  No  preference  shall  be  given  by  any  regulation  of 
commerce  or  revenue  to  the  ports  of  one  State  over  those 
of  another;  nor  shall  vessels  bound  to,  or  from,  one 
State,  be  obliged  to  enter,  clear,  or  pay  duties  in 
another. 

Preference  of  Ports. 

The  prohibition  contained  in  this  clause  is  a  limitation  upon 
the  powers  of  Congress  and  not  upon  those  of  the  states,1  the 
object  being  to  restrain  Congress  from  fostering  or  oppress- 
ing one  port  or  the  commerce  of  one  state  and  thus  destro3-ing 
equality  and  uniformity  as  to  levies  of  contribution  from  foreign 
commerce.2  Discrimination  as  between  states  is  what  is  pro- 
hibited, not  discrimination  as  between  individual  ports  in  the 
same  or  different  states,  and  Congress  is  not  forbidden  to  make 
a  port  in  one  state  a  port  of  entry,  while  refusing  to  do  so  as  to 
a  port  in  another  state;3  nor  does  the  clause  operate  to  prevent 
incidental  advantages  to  the  ports  of  one  state  resulting  from 
commerce  legislation,4  or  to  acts  directly  benefiting  the  ports 
of  one  state  and  only  incidentally  injuring  those  of  another.5 

The  preservation  of  the  commercial  equality  of  the  states  is 
aimed  at,  and  legislation  tending  directly  to  destroy  that  equal- 
ity is  what  is  prohibited.6  An  act  of  Congress  legalizing  a 
bridge  across  a  navigable  stream  does  not  have  this  effect  and  so 
does  not  come  within  the  prohibition.7 

Entry,  Clearance  and  Payment  of  Duties. 

Under  this  part  of  the  clause  the  privileges  and  immunities  of 
vessels  entering  or  clearing  must  be  common  and  equal  in  all 

1  Munn  v.  Illinois,  94  TJ.  S.  135,  24  L.  ed.  77;  Morgan  etc.  Co.  v. 
Louisiana,  118  U.  S.  467,  6  S.  Ot.  1114,  30  L.  ed.  237;  Johnson  v. 
Chicago  etc.  Co.,  119  U.  S.  400,  7  S.  Ct.  254,  30  L.  ed.  447;  Alexander 
v.  E.  R.  Co.,  3  Strob.  594. 

2  Munn  v.  Illinois,  94  TJ.  S.  135,  24  L.  ed.  77;  Passenger  Cases, 
7  How.  283,  12  L.  ed.  702;  Documentary  Hist.  Const.,  vol.  Ill,  pp. 
639,  628,  660,  748. 

3  Pennsylvania  v.   Wheeling  Br.,  18  How.  435,  15  L.  ed.  435. 

4  Pennsylvania  v.  Wheeling  Br.,  18  How.  435,  15  L.  ed.  435. 

5  South  Carolina  v.  G-eorgia,  93  U.  S.  13,  23  L.  ed.  782. 

6  Passenger  Cases,  7  How.  283,  12  L.  ed.  712. 

7  Pennsylvania  v.  Wheeling  Br.,  18  How.  435,  15  L.  ed.  435. 


235  Preferences  to  Ports.        Art.  I,  §  9,  CI.  6 

the  ports  of  the  several  states,  so  far  as  congressional  legislation 
is  concerned,8  and  it  is  only  the  port  to  or  from  which  a  vessel 
is  bound  that  is  to  be  considered  in  relation  to  entry,  clearance 
or  payment  of  duties.9  The  states  are  not  restricted  in  the  regu- 
lation of  their  internal  affairs,10  or  in  the  exercise  of  their  police 
powers.11  Accordingly  a  state  quarantine  law  affecting  vessels 
entering  its  ports  is  valid,12  and  a  state  pilot  law  is  not  open  to 
the  objection  that  it  gives  a  preference  to  the  ports  of  one  state 
over  those  of  another  in  exempting  certain  vessels  from  the  pay- 
ment of  fees.13  "Of  another"  and  "duties  in  another,"  relate 
to  commerce  and  navigation.14 

8  Pennsylvania  v.  Wheeling  Br.,  18  How.  435,  15  L.  ed.  435. 

9  United  States  v.  The  William,  2  Hall.  L.  J.  255,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
16,700. 

10  Munn  v.  Illinois,  94  TJ.  S.  135,  24  L.  ed.  77;  Johnson  v.  Chicago 
Elevator  Co.,  119  U.  S.  400.  7  S.  Ct.  254,  30  L.  ed.  447;  Baker  v.  Wise, 
16  Gratt.  80;  State  v.  Charleston,  10  Rich.  240;  People  v.  Tax  Com- 
missioners, 17  N.  Y.  Supp.  255. 

11  Guy  v.  Baltimore,  100  TJ.  S.  443,  25  L.  ed.  743;  Baker  v.  Wise, 
16  Gratt.  139. 

ie  Morgan  etc.  Co.  v.  Louisiana,  118  TJ.  S.  467,  6  S.  Ct.  1114,  30 
L.  ed.  237. 

13  Cooley  v.  Board  of  Wardens,  12   How.  314,  13  L.   ed.  996. 

14  Gibbons  v.  Ogden,  9  Wheat.  1,  6  L.  ed.  23. 


Art.  I,  §  9,  CI.  7  Appropriations.  236 

7.  No  money  shall  be  drawn  from  the  treasury  but 
in  consequence  of  appropriations  made  by  law;  and 
a  regular  statement  and  account  of  the  receipts  and 
expenditures  of  all  public  money  shall  be  published 
from  time  to  time. 

Under  this  clause,  money  once  in  the  treasury  can  only  be 
withdrawn  pursuant  to  an  express  appropriation  by  Congress;1 
but  the  restriction  operates  only  upon  the  Treasury  Department 
and  does  not  restrain  Congress  from  involving  the  government 
in  liabilities  to  pay  money  to  any  extent.2  The  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  is  prohibited  from  directing  the  payment  of 
moneys  not  specifically  appropriated  by  law;3  the  mere  direction 
that  a  claim  be  entered  upon  the  books  is  not  an  appropriation 
giving  authority  to  pay  it.4 

While  Congress  has  the  power  to  prevent  the  payment  of 
claims  by  refusing  to  appropriate  money  therefor,5  an  appro- 
priation of  a  less  amount  than  is  specified  by  a  law  fixing  com- 
pensation does  not  abrogate  or  suspend  such  law  nor  impair  the 
validity  of  the  claim,6  nor  does  the  fact  that  the  appropriation 
out  of  which  the  claim  should  have  been  paid  has  lapsed  con- 
stitute a  defense  to  the  claim  itself.7  Where  an  appropriation 
is  insufficient  to  satisfy  a  claim,  the  claimant's  remedy  is  by  ap- 
peal to  Congress.8  An  act  appropriating  less  than  the  amount 
recommended  by  the  head  of  a  department  to  the  payment  of 

1  Knote  v.  United  States,  95  TJ.  S.  154,  24  L.  ed.  442;  Briggs'  Case, 
14  Ct.  of  CI.  48. 

2  Collin's  Case,  14  Ct.  of  CI.  568,  15  Ct.  of  CI.  22;  Mitchell's 
Case,  18  Ct.  of  CI.  281. 

3  United  States  v.  Guthrie,  17  How.  304,  15  L.  ed.  102. 

4  Eeeside  v.  Walker,  11  How.  291,  13  L.  ed.  693,  and  see  State  v. 
Kenney,  9  Mont.  395,  24  Pac.  97;  Orr  v.  Quimby,  54  N.  H.  654. 

5  Hart's  Case,  16  Ct.  of  CI.  459. 

6  United  States  v.  Langston,  118  U.  S.  394,  6  S.  Ct.  11S5,  30  L. 
ed.  164. 

7  Briggs'  Case,  15  Ct.  of  CI.  48. 

8  Dunwoody  v.  United  States,  143  U.  S.  586,  12  S.  Ct.  465.  36  L. 
ed.  269. 


237  Appropriations.  Art.  I,  §  9,  CI.  7 

a  claim  does  not  operate  as  an  adoption  of  the  recommendation 
or  a  recognition  of  the  amount  therein  named  as  due.9 

Congress  may  recognize  and  pay  a  claim  of  an  equitable, 
moral  or  honorary  nature,  and  whether  the  facts  are  such  as  to 
authorize  relief  is  for  Congress  alone  to  determine,10  and  where 
Congress  directs  a  specific  sum  to  be  paid  to  a  certain  person, 
neither  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  nor  any  court  has  any 
discretion  to  determine  whether  the  person  is  entitled  to  re- 
ceive it.11  A  pardon  by  the  President  cannot  restore  the  pro- 
ceeds of  confiscated  property  already  paid  into  the  United 
States  treasury;  to  accomplish  restoration  of  such  proceeds  ap- 
propriation by  law  is  necessary.12 

Where  a  claim  has  been  audited,  allowed,  and  paid  in  the  usual 
manner,  the  government  cannot  reclaim  the  money  without 
showing  that  payment  was  induced  by  fraud  or  by  a  mistake 
of  fact.13 

9  Nhitt  v.  United  States,  123  IT.  S.  655,  8  S.  Ct.  997,  31  L.  ed. 
821. 

io  United  States  v.  Realty  Co.,  163  U.  S.  439,  444,  16  S.  Ct.  1120, 
41  L.  ed.  215;  Allen  v.  Smith,  173  U.  S.  393,  19  S.  Ct.  447,  43  L.  ed. 
741. 

ii  United  States  v.  Price,  116  U.  S.  44,  6  S.  Ct.  235,  29  L.  ed.  541; 
United  States  v.  Realty  Co.,  163  U.  S.  441,  lft  S.  Ct.  1120,  41  L.  ed. 
215. 

12  Knote  v.  United  States,  95  U.  S.  154,  24  L.  ed.  442;  Austin 
v.  United  States,  155  U.  S.  427,  15  S.  Ct.  172,  39  L.  ed.  206. 

13  United  States  v.  Olmstead,  118  Fed.  433. 


Art.  I,  §  9,  CI.  8  Titles  of  Nobility.  238 

8.  No  title  of  nobility  shall  be  granted  by  the 
United  States:  And  no  person  holding  any  office  of 
profit  or  trust  under  them  shall,  without  the  consent 
of  the  Congress,  accept  of  any  present,  emolument, 
office,  or  title,  of  any  kind  whatever,  from  any  king, 
prince,  or  foreign  State. 

The  original  draft  of  the  constitution  contained  only  the  pro- 
hibition against  grants  of  titles  of  nobility.1  The  insertion  of 
the  remainder  of  the  clause  was  prompted  by  a  recognition  of 
the  "necessity  of  preserving  foreign  ministers  and  other  officers 
of  the  United  States  independent  of  external  influence."2  A 
United  States  marshal  cannot,  during  his  tenure  of  office,  rep- 
resent a  foreign  nation  as  its  commercial  agent.3 

1  Documentary  Hist.   Const.,  vol.  Ill,  p.  450. 

2  Documentary   Hist.    Const.,   vol.  Ill,  p.  600. 

3  6  Opin.  Atty.  Gen.  409. 


239  Alliance  or  Confederation-.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 


SECTION"  10. 

POWERS    DENIED   TO    THE    STATES. 

1.  Various    acts   prohibited. 

2.  Imposts  or  duties  on  imports  or  exports  except  for  inspection. 

3.  Tonnage  duties;  keeping  troops  or  ships  of  war;  agreements  or 

compacts;   engaging  in  war. 

1.  No  State  shall  enter  into  any  treaty,  alliance, 
or  confederation;  grant  letters  of  marque  and  re- 
prisal; coin  money;  emit  bills  of  credit;  make  any- 
thing but  gold  and  silver  coin  a  tender  in  payment 
of  debts;  pass  any  bill  of  attainder,  ex  post  facto  law, 
or  law  impairing  the  obligation  of  contracts;  or  grant 
any  title  of  nobility. 

Nature  of  State  Governments. 

A  state,  in  the  sense  of  the  constitution,  is  a  political  com- 
munity of  free  citizens  occupying  definite  territory  and  or- 
ganized under  a  government  sanctioned  and  limited  by  a  written 
constitution,  and  established  by  the  consent  of  the  governed, 
and  the  union  of  such  states,  under  the  constitution,  forms  the 
United  States.1  With  respect  to  the  general  government,  the 
states  are  not  sovereign  powers,  but  members  of  the  Union  whose 
constitution  is  supreme  f  but  as  respects  their  local  government, 
they  are  sovereign  within  their  own  limits,  and  foreign  as  to 
each  other.3     This  sovereignty  of  the  states  in  their  relations 

1  Texas  v.  White,  7  Wall.  721,  19  L.  ed.  227;  Hall  v.  Hall,  43  Ala. 
502,  94  Am.  Dec.  712. 

2  Fletcher  v.  Peck,  6  Cr.  136,  3  L.  ed.  162. 

3  Buekner  v.  Finley,  2  Pet.  591,  7  L.  ed.  528;  Bank  of  United  States 
v.  Daniel,  12  Pet.  54,  9  L.  ed.  989;  Mahon  v.  Justice,  127  U.  S.  706, 
8  S.  Ct.  1204,  32  L.  ed.  283;  Hatch  v.  Spofford,  22  Conn.  497,  58  Am. 
Dec.  436;  Seevers  v.  Clement,  28  Md.  434;  Smith  v.  Lathrop,  44  Pa. 
St.  330,  84  Am.  Dec.  450. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1    Alliance  or  Confederation.  240 

with  each  other,  however,  is  qualified;4  they  have  surrendered 
their  treaty-making  powers  to  the  general  government,5  and 
they  cannot  declare  war  or  authorize  reprisals  on  other  states.6 

Alliance  or  Confederation. 

The  union  of  the  states  is  perpetual  and  indissoluble;  upon 
the  admission  of  a  state  the  union  between  that  state  and  the 
other  states  becomes  complete,7  and  a  state  has  no  right  to  se- 
cede.8 At  no  time  were  the  rebellious  states  out  of  the  Union.9 
The  attempt  of  those  states  to  separate  themselves  from  the 
Union  did  not  destroy  their  identity  as  states,  nor  free  them 
from  the  binding  force  of  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States;10  their  rights  under  the  constitution  were  suspended, 
not  destroyed,  but  their  constitutional  duties  and  obligations  re- 
mained the  same.11  The  action  of  the  rebellious  states  in  set- 
ting aside  their  former  governments  and  constituting  new  one:i, 
connected  with  another  so-called  central  government,  operated 
to  suspend  their  practical  relations  with  the  Union,  but  did  not 

4  Mahon  v.  Justice,  127  TJ.  S.  705,  8  S.  Ct.  1204,  32  L.  ed.  283. 

5  Holmes  v.  Jennison,  14  Pet.  571,  10  L.  ed.  579;  United  States'  v. 
Rauscher,  119  IT.  S.  412,  7  S.  Ct.  237,  30  L.  ed.  425;  In  re  Parrott,  1 
Fed.  481 ;  People  v.  Curtis,  50  N.  Y.  325,  10  Am.  Eep.  486. 

6  Mahon  v.  Justice,  127  U.  S.  705,  8  S.  Ct.  1204,  32  L.  ed.  283. 

7  Texas  v.  White,  7  Wall.  725,  726,  19  L.  ed.  227;  Keith  v.  Clark, 
97  U.  S.  461,  24  L.  ed.  1071;  Daniels  v.  Tearney,  102  U.  S.  418,  26 
L.  ed.  187;  Pennywit  v.  Foote,  27  Ohio  St.  620,  22  Am.  Rep.  352. 

s  White  v.  Hart,  13  Wall.  651,  20  L.  ed.  685;  Keith  v.  Clark,  97 
U.  S.  461,  24  L.  ed.  1071;  Sequestration  Cases,  30  Tex.  688,  98  Am. 
Dec.  494;  Chancely  v.  Bailey,  37  Ga.  532;  Central  R.  R.  v.  Ward, 
37  Ga.  515;  Hood  v.  Maxwell,  1  W.  Va.  219. 

9  White  v.  Hart,  13  Wall.  651,  20  L.  ed.  685;  Keith  v.  Clark,  97 
U.  S.  461,  24  L.  ed.  1071;  Williams  v.  Bruffy,  96  U.  S.  188-190,  24  L. 
ed.  716;  State  v.  Bank  of  Tennessee,  5  Baxt.  24;  Homestead  Oases, 
22  Gratt.  283,  12  Am.  Rep.  511. 

10  Keith  v.  Clark,  97  TJ.  S.  461,  24  L.  ed.  1071;  Stewart  v.  Palmer, 
SO  Va.  81. 

u  White  v.  Hart,  13  Wall.  651,  20  L.  ed.  685;  Taylor  v.  Thomas, 
22  Wall.  490,  22  L.  ed.  789;  Oliver  v.  Memphis  etc.  R.  R.  30  Ark.  131. 


211  Alliance  ok  Confederation.    Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

in  any  degree  effect  a  separation,12  and  the  constitution  in  force 
before  the  Ordinance  of  .Secession  continued  in  force  after  the 
overthrow  of  the  Rebellion.13 

The  Ordinance  of  Secession  and  all  acts  intended  to  give  it 
effect  were  null  and  void.14  It  did  not  abrogate  the  constitu- 
tion and  laws  then  in  force,15  nor  release  citizens  from  their 
obligation  of  loyalty  to  the  government  of  the  United  States.153 
The  only  effect  of  the  ordinance  was  to  suspend  the  rights  of 
the  citizens  of  the  rebellious  states  as  citizens  of  the  United 
States.16  The  state  governments  continued  to  exist  de  jure,  and 
their  acts  were  as  valid  and  binding  on  them  as  if  no  attempt 
at  secession  had  been  made.17  Accordingly  the  judgment  of  a 
state  supreme  court,  rendered  after  the  Ordinance  of  Secession, 
was  not  avoided  thereby,  nor  was  the  relation  of  that  court  to 
the  appellate  power  of  the  United  States  supreme  court  af- 
fected;18 a  sale  under  execution  on  a  judgment  during  the  Re- 
bellion passed  a  good  title,19  and  the  judgment  of  a  court  under 

12  Shortridge  v.  Macon,  Chase,  136,  1  Abb.  U.  S.  58,  Fed.  Gas. 
No.  12812. 

13  Scruggs  v.  Huntsville,  45  Ala.  220;  President  v.  State,  45  Ala. 
399. 

14  Manran  v.  Alliance  Ins.  Co.,  6  Wall.  13,  18  L.  ed.  836;  Keith 
v.  Clark,  97  U.  S.  461,  24  L.  ed.  1071;  Texas  v.  White,  7  Wall.  726, 
19  L.  ed.  227;  Pennywit  v.  Foote,  27  Ohio  St.  6)20,  22  Am.  Eep.  352; 
United  States  v.  Cathcart,  1  Bond.  556,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,756;  United 
States  v.  Morrison,  Chase,  521,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,817;  Hall  v.  Hall, 
43  Ala.  498,  94  Am.  Dec.  708;  Ex  parte  Norton,  44  Ala.  180;  Scruggs 
v.  Mayor,  45  Ala.  222;  Thomas  v.  Taylor,  42  Miss.  704,  2  Am.  Rep. 
635. 

15  Harlan  v.  State,  41  Miss.  566. 

15a  White  v.  Hart,  13  Wall.  651,  20  L.  ed.  685;  United  States  v. 
Cathcart,  1  Bond,  556,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,756;  Homestead  Cases,  23 
Gratt.  266,  12  Am.  Eep.  507. 

ic  Texas  v.  White,  7  Wall.  727,  19  L.  ed.  227;  Perkins  v.  Rogers, 
35  Ind.  163,  9  Am.  Rep.  670. 

17  White  v.  Cannon,  6  Wall.  450,  18  L.  ed.  923;  Hawkins  v.  Fil- 
kins,  24  Ark.  286;  Harlan  v.  State,  41  Miss.  566;  State  v.  Sears, 
Phil.   (N.  C.)   146. 

is  White  v.  Cannon,  6  Wall.  450,  18  L.  ed.  923. 

19  Parks  v.  Coffey,  52  Ala.  36. 
Notes  on  Constitution — 16 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1    Alliance  or  Confederation.  242 

a  secession  government  is  not  attackable  collaterally.20  Only 
such  judicial  acts  as  were  hostile  in  their  purpose  or  mode  of 
enforcement,  to  the  authority  of  the  national  government,  or 
which  impaired  rights  of  citizens  under  the  federal  constitution, 
were  void.21 

The  so-called  government  established  by  the  states  in  rebel- 
lion and  designated  the  Confederate  States  of  America  never 
attained  to  the  dignity  of  a  de  facto  government  in  such  a 
sense  as  to  give  legal  efficacy  to  its  acts;  it  was  simply  an  armed 
resistance  to  sovereign  authority,22  and  never  had  any  existence 
except  as  organized  treason.23  It  could  not  devest  any  right  or 
property  held  under  United  States  laws,24  nor  could  it  lawfully 
sequestrate  the  property  of  a  loyal  citizen  as  an  alien  enemy,25 
nor  take,  hold  or  convey  a  valid  title  to  property,  real  or  per- 
sonal,26 and  its  acts  of  confiscation  were  null  and  void.27 

The  Confederate  government  was  at  no  time  a  de  facto  govern- 
ment, either  as  a  government  which  represented  the  nation,  ex- 
pelling public  authorities,  making  treaties,  and  receiving  recog- 
nition as  an  independent  power,  or  which  separated  itself  and 

20  Pepin  v.  Lachenmeyer,  45  N.  Y.  34;  but  see  Penny  wit  v.  Foote, 
27  Ohio  St.  630,  22  Am.  Kep.  361. 

21  Taylor  v.  Thomas,  22  Wall.  491,  22  L.  ed.  789. 

22  Hickman  v.  Jones,  9  Wall.  200,  19  L.  ed.  515;  Williams  v.  Bruffy, 
96  U.  S.  176,  24  L.  ed.  716;  Dewing  v.  Perdicaries,  96  U.  S.  195,  24 
L.  ed.  654;  Donegan  v.  Wood,  49  Ala.  249,  20  Am.  Eep.  278;  United 
States  v.  Stark,  27  Fed.  Cas.  330;  MeCracken  v.  Poole,  19  La.  Ann. 
359;  Bailey  v.  Milner,  35  Ga.  330;  Thornburg  v.  Harris,  3  Cold.  157; 
Keppeil  v.  Petersburg  E.  K.,  Chase,  167,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7722. 

23  Sprott  v.  United  States,  20  Wall.  464,  20  L.  ed.  371;  Bragg  v. 
Tufts,  49  Ark.  562,  6  S.  W.  161. 

24  United  States  v.  Koehler,  9  Wall.  86,  19  L.  ed.  574;  Vance  v. 
Burt  is,  39  Tex.  91. 

25  Central  etc.  B.  B.  v.  Ward,  37  Ga.  515;  Sequestration  Cases,  30 
Tex.  688,  98  Am.  Dec.  494;  Vance  v.  Burtis,  39  Tex.  88;  Shortridge 
v.  Macon,  Chase,  136,  1  Abb.  U.  S.  58,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,812. 

26  Sprott  v.  United  States,  20  Wall.  463,  20  L.  ed.  371;  Lamar  v. 
Micou,  112  U.  S.  476,  5  S.  Ct.  232,  28  L.  ed.  751. 

27  Keppel  v.  Petersburg  etc.  E.  E.,  Chase,  167,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7722; 
Penn  v.  Tollison,  26  Ark.  545;  Thompson  v.  Mankin,  26  Ark.  586,  7 
Am.  Eep.  628;  Timms  v.  Grace,  26  Ark.  598;  Perdicaries  v.  Charles- 
ton etc.  Co.,  Chase,  435,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,974. 


243  Alliance  or  Confederation.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

successfully  established  a  permanent  independence.28  The  only 
sense  in  which  such  a  character  can  be  attributed  to  it  is  in  so 
far  as  it  established  itself  by  paramount  military  force,  and  so 
long  as  it  could  compel  obedience  to  its  authority.29  To  this 
extent,  and  for  the  purpose  of  protecting  persons  acting  under 
orders  from  its  military  authorities,  it  may  be  said  to  have  been 
a  de  facto  government.30 

The  government  of  the  individual  states  in  rebellion  were  not 
de  facto;31  the  legislature  of  such  a  state,  upon  its  becoming 
a  member  of  the  insurrectionary  confederacy,  ceased  to  represent 
the  state  as  a  member  of  the  federal  Union,32  and  all  its  acts 
in  furtherance  of  the  Rebellion  were  invalid,33  including  issues 
of  bonds  and  treasury  notes  under  its  authority.34  Contracts  in 
aid  of  the  Rebellion  were  also  void,35  and  obligations  incurred 
by  a  corporation  for  that  purpose  were  void;36  but  it  will  not 

28  Williams  v.  Bruffy,  96  U.  S.  185,  24  L.  ed.   716. 

29  Thorington  v.  Smith,  8  Wall.  10.  19  L.  ed.  361;  Hubbard  v. 
Hamden  Exp.  Co.,  10  R.  I.  249;  Smith  v.  Brazelton,  1  Heisk.  67,  'J 
Am.  Rep.  ©89;  Newton  v.  Bushong,  22  Gratt.  633,  12  Am.  Rep.  556. 

30  Ford  v.  Surget,  97  U.  S.  605,  24  L.  ed.  1018;  See,  also,  Under- 
bill v.  Hernandez,  168)  U.  S.  253,  18  S.  Ct.  84,  42  L.  ed.  456,  affirm- 
ing, 65  Fed.  582,  38  L.  R.  A.  405. 

31  Penn  v.  Tollison,  26  Ark.  545;  Thompson  v.  Mankin,  26  Ark. 
586,  7  Am.  Rep.  628. 

32  Taylor  v.  Thomas,  22  Wall.  489,  22  L.  ed.  789,  affirming  42  Miss. 
651,  2  Am.  Rep.  625. 

33  Texas  v.  White,  7  Wall.  733,  19  L.  ed.  227;  Taylor  v.  Thomas, 
22  Wall.  488,  22  L.  ed.  789;  Hatch  v.  Burroughs,  1  Woods,  445,  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  6203;  Isaacs  v.  Richmond,  90  Va.  31,  17  S.  E.  761;  Mosely 
v.  Tuthill,  45  Ala.  647,  6  Am.  Rep.  714;  Mississippi  etc.  R.  R.  v.  State, 
46  Miss.  218;  Alexander  v.  Lewis,  47  Tex.  490. 

34  Hanauer  v.  Woodruff,  15  Wall.  442,  21  L.  ed.  224;  Branch  v. 
Haas,  4  Woods,  589,  16  Fed.  55;  Thomas  v.  Taylor,  42  Miss.  651,  2 
Am.  Rep.  625;  Leak  v.  Commissioners,  64  N.  C.  132;  Rand  v.  State, 
65  N.  C.  194;  Ray  v.  Thompson,  43  Ala.  434. 

35  Hanauer  v.  Doane,  12  Wall.  345,  20  L.  ed.  430;  Confiscation 
Cases,  1  Woods,  226,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3097;  Whitis  v.  Polk,  36  Tex.  628. 

36  Bibb  v.  Commissioners,  44  Ala.  119;  Evans  v.  Richmond,  Chase. 
551,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4570. 


Art  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Alliance  or  Confederation.  244 

be  presumed  that  notes  issued  by  a  bank  in  an  insurrectionary 
state  were  issued  for  an  unlawful  purpose.37 

While,  however,  the  government  of  the  United  States  is  not 
bound  to  recognize  as  valid  any  action  by  a  state  engaged  in 
rebellion,38  yet  laws  were  upheld  so  far  as  they  did  not  tend  to 
impair  the  supremacy  of  the  national  government  or  the  con- 
stitutional rights  of  citizens;39  e.  g.,  statutes  necessary  for  the 
protection  of  persons  and  property;40  laws  for  the  regulation  of 
business  transactions;41  statutes  regulating  the  creation  of  cor- 
porations;42 statutes  in  aid  of  railroad  corporations.43 

S7  Keith  v.  Clark.  97  U.  S.  466,  24  L.  ed.  1071;  Clark  v.  Keith,  106 
U.  S.  465,  1  S.  Ot.  569,  27  L.  ed.  302. 

ss  Thompson  v.  Mankin,  26  Ark.  586,  7  Am.  Rep.  628. 

39  Horn  v.  Lockhardt,  17  Wall.  580,  21  L.  ed.  657;  Huntington  v. 
Texas,  16  Wall.  413,  21  L.  ed.  316;  Williams  v.  Bruffy,  96  TJ.  S.  176, 
24  L.  ed.  716. 

4"  Texas  v.  White,  7  Wall.  733,  19  L.  ed.  227;  Taylor  v.  Thomas, 
22  Wall.  489,  22  L.  ed.  789;  Cook  v.  Oliver,  1  Woods,  437,  Fed.  Caa. 
No.  3164;  Chappell  v.  Williamson,  49  Ala.  153;  Sequestration  Cases, 
20  Tex.  688,  98  Am.  Dec.  494;  Van  Epps  v.  Walsh,  1  Woods,  607,  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  16,850;  Calhoun  v.  Kellog,  41  Ga.  240;  Morgan  v.  Keenan, 
1  S.  C.  331;  Clay  v.  Robinson,  7  W.  Va.  356. 

41  Thomas  v.  Richmond,  12  Wall.  357,  20  L.  ed.  453;  Sprott  v. 
United  States,  20  Wall.  464,  22  L.  ed.  371;  Hill  v.  Boyland,  40  Miss. 
618;  Buchanan  v.  Smith,  43  Miss.  90;  Wallace  v.  State,  33  Tex.  445. 

42  United  States  v.  Insurance  Cos.,  22  Wall.  103,  22  L.  ed.  816; 
Frierson  v.  General  Assembly,  7  Heisk.  705. 

4  3  Davis  v.  Gray,  16  Wall.  225,  21  L.  ed.  447. 


245  Bills  of  Credit.  Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

Emit  bills  of  credit; 

Bills  of  Credit. 

A  bill  of  credit  within  the  constitutional  prohibition,  is  a 
paper  issued  by  the  state,  on  the  faith  of  the  state,  and  designed 
to  circulate  as  money.1  All  three  of  these  attributes  must  con- 
cur in  the  paper  to  render  it  objectionable  under  this  clause.2 
It  must  be  issued  by  the  state,3  or  by  state  officers  under  state 
authority;  e.  g.,  state  treasurer.4 

Bills  issued  by  state  banks  are  not  bills  of  credit,5  although 
the  state  guarantees  their  payment.6  The  fact  that  the  state 
is  the  sole  stockholder  in  the  bank,  whose  officers  are  elected  by 
the  state  legislature,  is  immaterial  ;7  a  state,  by  becoming  in- 
terested, with  others,  in  a  corporation,  or  by  acquiring  all  the 
capital  stock  does  not  impart  to  the  corporation  any  of  its  at- 
tributes of  sovereignty.8 

1  Craig  v.  Missouri,  4  Pet.  433,  7  L.  ed.  903;  Briscoe  v.  Bank  of 
Kentucky,  11  Pet.  318,  9  L.  ed.  709;  Woodruff  v.  Trapnall,  10  How. 
190,  13  L.  ed.  383;  Wesley  v.  Eells,  177  U.  S.  370,  20  S.  Ct.  661,  44 
L.  ed.  810,  affirming  90  Fed.  157;  Bailey  v.  Milner,  35  Ga.  330,  1 
Abb.  U.  S.  263,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  740;  Bragg  v.  Tuffts,  49  Ark.  563,  6 
S.  W.  162;  City  Bank  v.  Mahan,  21  La.  Ann.  752. 

2  Briscoe  v.  Bank  of  Kentucky,  11  Pet.  318,  9  L.  ed.  709. 

3  Curran  v.  Arkansas,  15  How.  318,  14  L.  ed.  705;  Philadelphia  By. 
Co.  v.  Morrison,  19  Fed.  Cas.  488. 

4  Wesley  v.  Eells,  177  U.  S.  370,  20  S.  Ct.  661,  44  L.  ed.  810;  Bragg 
v.  Tuffts,  49  Ark.  563,  6  S.  W.  162. 

5  Curran  v.  Arkansas,  15  How.  318,  14  L.  ed.  705;  Veazie  Bank  v. 
Fenno,  8  Wall.  552,  19  L.  ed.  482;  Nathan  v.  Louisiana,  8  How.  81, 
12  L.  ed.  992;  Owen  v.  Branch  Bank,  3  Ala.  258;  McFarland  v.  State 
Bank,  4  Ark.  44,  37  Am.  Dec.  761;  Bank  v.  Spilman,  3  Dana,  150; 
Lampton  v.  Bank,  2  Litt.  300;  Bills  v.  State,  2  McCord,  12;  Craig- 
head v.  Bank,  1  Meigs,  199;  Vermont  Bank  v.  Porter,  5  Day,  316,  5 
Am.  Dec  157.  But  see  Linn  v.  State  Bank,  1  Scam.  90,  25  Am.  Dec. 
72;  Bank  of  Kentucky  v.  Clark,  4  Mo.  61,  28  Am.  Deo.  347. 

6  Darrington  v.  Bank  of  Alabama,  13  How.  16,  14  L.  ed.  30. 

1  Briscoe  v.  Bank  of  Kentucky,  11  Pet.  318,  9  L.  ed.  709;  Darring- 
ton v.  Bank  of  Alabama,  13  How.  14,  14  L.  ed.  30;  Owen  v.  Branch 
Bank,  3  Ala.  262;  McFarland  v.  State  Bank,  4  Ark.  51.  37  Am.  Dec. 
765;  Jones  v.  Bank  of  Tennessee,  8  B.  Mon.  123,  46  Am.  Dec.  541. 

8  Briscoe  v.  Bank  of  Kentucky,  11  Pet.  325,  9  L.  ed.  709;  Curran 
v.  Arkansas,  15  How.  309,  14  L.  ed.  705;  Davis  v.  Gray,  16  Wall.  23:', 


Art  I,  §  10,  CI.  1  Bills  of  Credit.  246 

To  come  within  the  prohibition  a  bill  must  be  issued  by  a 
state,  on  its  faith  and  credit,  and  be  designed  to  circulate  as 
money  ;9  but  this  clause  does  not  forbid  the  states  to  execute  in- 
struments binding  themselves  to  pay  money  at  a  future  day  for 
services  rendered  or  for  money  'borrowed.10  A  treasury  note 
issued  as  evidence  of  a  loan,  if  not  intended  as  a  circulating 
medium,  is  not  a  bill  of  credit;11  so  also  as  to  a  bill  drawn  upon 
a  particular  fund.12  Nor  is  a  treasury  warrant  drawn  in  pav- 
ment  of  an  appropriation  made  by  the  legislature  and  payable 
if  there  be  funds  in  the  treasury,  objectionable  as  a  bill  of 
credit.13     ,, 

j  A  state  may  authorize  municipalities  to  issue  certificates  of 
indebtedness,14  and  to  pledge  their  real  estate  for  the  redemp- 
tion of  such  certificates.15 

Besides  the  issue  of  such  paper  by  the  state  there  must  be  the 
intent  to  have  it  circulate  as  money,16  receivable  for  all  debts 
and    taxes,  salaries    and  fees.17     A   state    cannot    by   indirect 

21   L.   ed.   447;    Southern   Ry.   v.    North   Carolina   Ry.,   81   Fed.    600; 
Durham  v.  Railroad,  108  N.  C.  402,  12  S.  E.  1041;  Owen  v.  Branch 
Bank,  3  Ala.  258;  Central  Bank  v.  Little,  11  Ga.  346.     But  see  Bank 
of  Kentucky  v.  Wister,  2  Pet.  324,  7  L.  ed.  437. 
.     9  Briscoe  v.  Bank  of  Kentucky,  11  Pet,  318,  9  L.  ed.  709. 

10  Craig  v.  Missouri,  4  Pet.  433,  7  L.  ed.  903;  Virginia  Coupou 
Cases,  114  U.  S.  370,  5  S.  Ct.  903,  29  L.  ed.  185;  Chaffin  v.  Taylor, 
116  U.  S.  567,  6  S.  Ct.  518,  29  L.  ed.  727;  Woodruff  v.  Mississippi,  J62 
ir.  S.  299,  16  S.  Ct.  820,  40  L.  ed.  973;  McCoy  v.  Washington  Co.,  3 
Wall.  Jr.  381,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8731;  Peyaud  v.  State,  13  Miss.  491. 

11  Ramsey  v.  Cox,  28  Ark.  36Q;  Green  v.  Sizer,  40  Miss.  530. 

12  Go  wen  v.  Shute,  4  Baxt.  63. 

13  Houston  etc.  R.  R.  v.  Texas,  177  U.  S.  83,  20  S.  Ct.  545,  44  L. 
ed.  673;  Peyaud  v.  State,  13  Miss.  491. 

14  Mayor  v.  State,  15  Md.  376;  Smith  v.  New  Orleans,  23  La.  Ann. 
5;  Delafield  v.  State,  26  Wend.  192. 

15  Smith  v.  New  Orleans,  23  La.  Ann.  5. 

10  Woodruff  v.  Trapnall,  10  How.  205,  13  L.  ed.  383;  Poindexter  v. 
Grecnhow,  114  U.  S.  284,  5  S.  Ct.  910,  29  L.  ed.  185;  Ramsey  v.  Cox, 
28  Ark.  369;  Indiana  v.  Woram,  6  Hill,  33. 

17  Craig  v.  Missouri  4  Pet.  433,  7  L.  ed.  903;  In  re  Milner,  1  Abb. 
U.  S.  263,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  740;  City  Bank  v.  Mahan,  21  La.  Ann.  751. 


247  Bills  of  Credit.  Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

means,  or  by  any  device,  emit  bills  of  credit.18  The  form  of 
the  paper  is  immaterial ;  if  it  is  issued  by  the  state  on  its  credit 
and  in  fact  designed  to  circulate  as  money,  it  is  void.19  So 
railroad  scrip  resembling  bank  notes,  issued  in  various  denomi- 
nations, based  upon  the  pledge  of  the  state,  receivable  for  dues 
and  ta.xes  to  the  state,  and  when  so  received  available  for  the 
payment  of  claims  against  the  state  treasury,  are  clearly  de- 
signed to  circulate  as  money  and  are  void;20  paper  need  not  be 
made  legal  tender  in  terms  in  order  to  come  within  the  de- 
nomination *f  a  bill  of  credit.21  Where,  however,  warrants 
drawn  on  the  treasury  are  receivable  in  payment  of  taxes  due 
the  state,  but  provision  is  made  for  their  retirement  when  so 
taken,  this  clause  is  not  violated;22  the  use  of  the  words  "as 
money"  in  making  such  warrants  receivable  in  payment  of 
taxes  is  not  conclusive  of  an  intent  to  make  them  operate  as 
currency  generally.23  So.  also,  coupons  for  interest  on  state 
bonds,  negotiable  by  delivery  merely,  and  receivable  in  payment 
of  taxes,  are  not  issued  as  a  substitute  for  money  and  are  not 
bills  of  credit.24 

Treasury  notes  issued  by  the  Confederate  states,  not  being 
issued  by  "a  state,"  were  not  bills  of  credit.25  The  invalidity 
of  such  notes  as  consideration  for  contracts  was  placed  upon  the 

is  Craig  v.  Missouri,  4  Wheat.  433,  7  L.  ed.  903;  Bank  v.  Clarke, 
4  Mo.  59,  28  Am.  Dec.  345;  Griffith  v.  Bank,  4  Mo.  255. 

3  9  Craig  v.  Missouri,  4  Pet.  410,  7  L.  ed.  903;  Byrne  v.  Missouri,  8 
Pet.  40,  8  L.  ed.  859. 

20  Wesley  v.  Eells,  177  U.  S.  370,  20  S.  Ct.  661,  44  L.  ed.  810,  affirm- 
ing 90  Fed.  151. 

21  Craig  v.  Missouri,  4  Pet.  436,  7  L.  ed  903;  Byrne  v.  Missouri,  8 
Pet.  42,  8  L.  ed.  859;  Bills  v.  State,  2  McCord,  12. 

22  Houston  etc.  B.  E.  v.  Texas,  177  U.  S.  83,  20  S.  Ct.  545,  44  L. 
ed.  673. 

23  Houston  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Texas,  177  U.  S.  84,  20  S.  Ct.  545,  44  L. 
ed.  673;  Galveston  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Texas,  177  U.  S.  103,  2C  S.  Ct.  559.  44 
L.  ed.  690. 

24  Poindexter  v.  Greenhow,  114  U.  S.  284,  5  S.  Ct.  910,  29  L.  ed.  185. 

25  Bailey  v.  Milner,  1  Abb.  U.  S.  263,  35  Ga.  332,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  740. 
But  see  Hale  v.  Huston,  44  Ala.  139,  4  Am.  Eep.  127;  Thornburg  v. 
Harris,  3   Cold.   160. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1  Bills  of  Credit.  248 

ground  that  they  were  issued  in  aid  of  the  Rebellion.26  A  cer- 
tificate of  deposit  is  not  a  note  issued  to  circulate  as  money,  and 
so  is  not  a  bill  of  credit.27 

26  Hanauer  v.  Woodruff,  15  Wall.  442,  21  L.  ed.  224;  Branch  v. 
Haas,  4  Woods,  589,  16  Fed.  55;  Bailey  v.  Milner,  1  Abb.  U.  S.  263, 
35  Ga.  332,  Fed.  Gas.  No.  740. 

S7  Hunt,  Appellant,  141  Mass.  520,  6  N.  E.  556. 


249  Coinage  and  Tender.      Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

Coin  money;  *  *  *  make  anything  but  gold  and 
silver  coin  a  tender  in  payment  of  debts; 

Coinage  and  Legal  Tender. 

The  act  of  coining  money,  being  prohibited,  cannot  be  done 
by  a  state,  either  directly  or  indirectly.1  The  term  "money" 
means  gold,  silver  and  copper  coins,2  and  to  "coin  money"  is  to 
mold  into  form  a  metallic  substance  of  intrinsic  value.3  The 
power  to  coin  money  was  denied  to  the  states  and  vested  in 
Congress  (see  art.  I,  §  8,  cl.  5)  in  order  to  create  and  preserve 
the  uniformity  and  purity  of  a  standard  of  value,  and  to  pre- 
vent the  irregularities  and  confusion  incident  to  different  views 
of  policy  on  the  part  of  the  several  states.4 

The  same  rule  applies  as  to  legal  tender;  a  statute  attempt- 
ing, by  indirect  means,  to  make  anything  but  gold  and  silver  a 
legal  tender  is  unconstitutional;5  e.  g.,  a  statute  requiring  a 
bank  to  receive  its  own  notes  in  payment  of  the  notes  of  another 
bank;6  a  statute  authorizing  the  tender  of  the  scrip  of  a  cor- 
poration for  taxes  or  assessments;7  a  statute  providing  for  a 
stay  of  execution  unless  the  creditor  accepts  payment  in  state 
bank  paper.8 

This  clause  imposes  no  duty  to  pass  any  laws  on  the  subject 
of  tender;  it  is  a  prohibition  against  affirmative  legislation 
creating  or  authorizing  a  tender.9  So  a  state  may  incorporate 
a  bank  and  authorize  it  to  issue  notes,  and  while  a  provision 

1  Briscoe  v.  Bank  of  Kentucky,  11  Pet.  318,  9  L.  ed.  709. 

2  Maynard  v.  Newman,  1  Nev.  271;  Thayer  v.  Hedges,  22  Ind.  301; 
Hague  v.  Powers,  39  Barb.  458;  Metropolitan  Bank  v.  Van  Dyck,  27 
N.  Y.  430. 

3  Griswold  v.  Hepburn,  2  Duvall,  29. 

4  United  States  v.  Marigold,  9  How.  567. 

5  Briscoe  v.  Bank  of  Kentucky,  11  Pet.  318,  9  L.  ed.  709;  Edwards 
<.  Kearzey,  96  U.  S.  606,  24  L.  ed.  793;  Lowry  v.  McGhee,  8  Yerg.  242. 

6  Bank  of  Stare  v.  Bank  of  Cape  Fear,  13  Ired.  75. 

7  Gaines  v.  Rives,  8  Ark.  220;  State  v.  Blackmo,  S  Blackf.  246. 

8  Briscoe  v.  Bank  of  Kentucky,  11  Pet.  318,  9  L.  ed.  709;  Town- 
send  v.  Townsend,  Peck,  1,  14  Am.  Dec.  721;  Bailey  v.  Gentry,  1  Mo. 
164. 

9  Van  Housan  v.  Kanousc,  13  Mich.  303,  311. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1      Coinage  and  Tender.  250 

making  such  notes  legal  tender  would  be  void,  it  would  not  af- 
fect the  validity  of  that  part  of  the  statute  creating  the  bank 
and  authorizing  the  issue  of  the  notes.10  A  provision  in  the 
charter  making  the  bank's  notes  receivable  in  payment  of  debts 
due  the  state  is  not  void  as  creating  a  legal  tender.11  Bank 
notes  are  not  a  legal  tender;  they  are  not  money  in  the  strict 
sense  of  the  term,  but  by  common  usage  they  ordinarily  pass  as 
money  and  constitute  a  good  tender  unless  objected  to.12 

io  Briscoe  v.  Bank  of  Kentucky,  11  Pet.  318,  9  L.  ed.  709;  Wood- 
ruff v.  Trapnall,  10  How.  206,  13  L.  ed.  383. 

11  Woodruff  v.  Trapnall,  10  How.  206,  13  L.  ed.  383;  Paup  v.  Drew, 
10  How.  224,  13  L.  ed.  394;  Trigg  v.  Drew,  10  How.  224,  13  L.  ed.  397; 
Bush  v.  Shipman,  5  111.  186. 

12  Bank  of  United  States  v.  Bank  of  Georgia,  10  Wheat.  347,  6  L. 
ed.  334;  Woodruff  v.  Mississippi,  162  U.  S.  300,  16  S.  Ct.  823,  40  L. 
ed.  973;  Corbitt  v.  Bank,  2  Harr.  (Del.)  252,  30  Am.  Dec.  626;  People 
v.  Mayhew,  26  Cal.  663;  Jones  v.  Overstreet,  4  T.  B.  Mon.  550; 
Klauber  v.  Biggerstaff,  47  Wis.  559,  32  Am.  Rep.  778,  3  N.  W.  361. 


251  Bills  of  Attainder.        Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

Any  bill  of  attainder  or  ex  post  facto  law. 

Bill  of  Attainder.* 

A  bill  of  attainder  is  a  legislative  act  which  inflicts  punish- 
ment without  a  judicial  trial.1  It  is  not  necessary  that  the 
punishment  be  inflicted  absolutely  in  order  to  render  legisla- 
tion objectionable;  the  punishment  may  be  conditional.2  The 
constitution  deals  with  substance,  not  form,  and  any  statute  de- 
priving a  citizen  of  rights  for  past  misconduct  is  void,  however 
disguised.3  The  term  "bill  of  attainder"  embraces  bills  of  pains 
and  penalties,4  and  comprehends  laws  confiscating  property  as 
well  as  those  affecting  the  life  of  an  individual.5  Any  depri- 
vation or  suspension  of  an  inalienable  right  is  a  punishment.6 
The  prohibition  extends  to  laws  depriving  a  party  of  the  privi- 
lege of  enforcing  contracts  because  of  prior  acts;7  statutes  de- 
priving of  the  right  to  office  for  dueling.8 

The  so-called  test-oath  acts  contravene  this  clause  in  exclud- 
ing certain  persons  from  practicing  their  professions  for  pre- 
vious acts  of  rebellion,9  or  depriving  such  persons  of  the  right  to 
a  rehearing  in  civil  suits  or  denying  to  nonresidents  the  right 
to  appear  and  defend  without  taking  the  prescribed  oath.10 

This  clause  does  not  forbid  a  state  to  prescribe  the  necessary 

1  Gummings  v.  Missouri,  4  Wall.  277,  18  L.  ed.  356. 

2  Gaines  v.  Buford,  1  Dana,  510. 

3  Cummings  v.  Missouri,  4  Wall.  325,  18  L.  ed.  356. 

4  Drehman  v.  Stifle,  8  Wall.  601,  19  L.  ed.  508,  affirming  41  Mo. 
184,  97  Am.  Dec.  248;  In  re  Yang  Sing  13  Saw.  485,  36  Fed.  439; 
Norris  v.  Doniphan,  4  Met.   (Ky.)   434. 

5  Fletcher  v.  Peck,  6  Cr.  138,  3  L.  ed.  162;  Ex  parte  Law,  35  Ga. 
302;  Myers  v.  Sanders,  7  Dana,  519. 

6  Cummings  v.  Missouri,  4  Wall.  323,  18  L.  ed.  356;  Stat©  v.  Wal- 
bridge,  119  Mo.  390,  41  Am.  St.  Rep.  667,  24  S.  W.  458. 

7  McNealy  v.  Gregory,  13  Fla.  417. 

8  Commonwealth  v.  Jones,  10  Busih,  732. 

9  Cummings  v.  Missouri,  4  Wall.  323,  18  L.  ed.  356;  Klinger  v. 
Missouri.  13  Wall.  257,  20  L.  ed.  635;  Murphy's  Case,  41  Mo.  339; 
State  v.  Heighland,  41  Mo.  388. 

10  Pierce  v.  Carskndon,  16  Wall.  239,  21  L.  ed.  276. 


*See,  also,  art.  I,  §  9,  cl.  3. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1        Bills  of  Attainder.  252 

qualifications  to  entitle  a  person  to  practice  his  profession;11  or 
to  require  pharmacists  to  register;12  or  to  exclude  ex-convicts 
from  the  practice  of  medicine;13  or  provide  for  the  examination 
and  licensing  of  plumbers.14  The  fact  that  such  statutes  are 
applicable  in  terms  to  persons  who*  had  previously  enjoyed  the 
right  to  pursue  their  avocations  does  not  render  them  objection- 
able.15 

In  the  absence  of  a  constitutional  provision  conferring  the 
elective  franchise  it  is  a  privilege  to  be  granted  as  the  legisla- 
ture may  deem  proper,  and  it  may  be  withheld  from  persons 
who  have  been  guilty  of  crime  without  violating  this  clause,16 
and  the  fitness  of  persons  claiming  the  right  to  vote  may  be 
tested  by  requiring  them  to  take  an  oath.17  Where,  however, 
the  right  has  been  conferred  by  constitutional  provision  the 
legislature  cannot  require  a  voter  to  take  any  oath  not  pre- 
scribed in  the  constitution.18 

A  provision  in  a  state  constitution  that  no  person  shall  be 
prosecuted  civilly  for  acts  done  under  military  authority  during 
the  Civil  War  is  not  a  bill  of  attainder.19 

11  Dent  v.  West  Virginia,  129  U.  S.  125,  9  S.  Ct.  234,  32  L.  ed.  623; 
Brooks  v.  State,  88  Ala.  124,  6  South.  903;  State  v.  Webster,  150  Tnd. 
616>,  50  N.  E.  753,  41  L.  E.  A.  212;  State  v.  Eandolph,  23  Or.  82,  37 
Am.  St.  Hep.  658,  31  Pac.  202,  17  L.  E.  A.  470. 

12  State  v.  Heinemann,  80  Wis.  257,  27  Am.  St.  Eep.  36,  49  N.  W. 
819. 

13  Howker  v.  New  York,  170  U.  S.  198,  18  S.  Ct.  577,  42  L.  ed. 
1002,  affirming  152  N.  Y.   242,  46  N.  E.  609. 

14  State  v.  Gardner,  58  Ohio  St.  609,  65  Am.  St.  Eep.  790,  51  X.  E. 
138,  41  L.  E.  A.  689. 

15  Dent  v.  West  Virginia,  129  U.  S.  126,  9  S.  Ct.  235,  32  L.  ed.  623. 

16  Murphy  v.  Eamsey,  114  U.  S.  42,  5  S.  Ct.  747,  29  L.  ed.  47; 
Shepherd  v.  Grimmett,  3  Idaho,  403,  31  Pac.  793;  Washington  v. 
State,  75  Ala.  582,  51  Am.  Eep.  479. 

17  Shepherd  v.  Grimmett,  3  Idaho,  403,  31  Pac.  793;  Wooley  v. 
Watkins,  2  Idaho,  590,  22  Pac.  102;  Blair  v.  Eidgley,  41  Mo.  63,  97 
Am.  Dec.  248;  Anderson  v.  Baker,  23  Md.  531;  State  v.  Neal,  42  Mo. 
119;  Eandolph  v.  Good,  3  W.  Va.  541. 

18  Green  v.  Shumway,  39  N.  Y.  418. 

19  Drehman  v.  Stifle,  8  Wall.  601,  6  L.  ed.  508,  affirming,  41  Mo. 
184,  97  Am.  Dee.  248;  Clark  v.  Dick,  1  Dill.  8,  Fed.  Cas.  Xo.  2818; 
Smith  v.  Owen,  42  Mo.  508;  State  v.  Gatzweiller,  49  Mo.  18,  8  Am. 


253  Ex  Post  Facto  Laws.       Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

Ex  Post  Facto  Laws.* 

An  ex  post  facto  law  is  a  law  enacted  after  an  offense  is  com- 
mitted and  which,  in  relation  to  it  or  its  consequences,  alters  the 
situation  of  the  accused  to  his  disadvantage.20  The  term  em- 
braces every  law  that  makes  an  act  done  before  the  passage  of 
the  law,  and  innocent  when  done,  criminal;21  every  law  that 
aggravates  a  crime  or  changes  the  punishment  and  inflicts  a 
greater  punishment  than  the  law  annexed  to  the  crime  when 
committed;22  every  law  that  alters  the  legal  rules  of  evidence, 
and  authorizes  conviction  upon  less  or  different  testimony  than 
was  required  by  law  at  the  time  an  offense  was  committed.23 

The  prohibition  embraces  not  only  laws  punishing  an  act 
which  was  innocent  when  committed,  but  also  laws  punishing 
for  criminal  acts  as  to  which  there  was  no  liability  to  punish- 
ment at  the  time  of  their  passage ;  e.  g.,  extending  the  time  for 
the  prosecution  of  offenses  and  attempting  to  revive  liability  to 
prosecution  already  barred.24     Where,  however,  the  immunity 

Kep.  119;   Hess  v.  Johnson,  3   W.   Va.  645;   Peerce   v.   Kitzmiller,   19 
W.  Va,  573. 

20  Kring  v.  Missouri,  107  IT.  S.  235,  2  S.  Ct.  449,  27  L.  ed.  506; 
Thompson  v.  Utah,  170  U.  S.  351,  18  S.  Ct.  620,  42  L.  ed.  1061. 

21  Gaidar  v.  Bull.  3  Dall.  390-393,  1  L.  ed.  648;  Watson  v.  Mercer, 
8  Pet.  110,  8  L.  ed.  876;  Ex  parte  Garland,  4  Wall.  366,  18  L.  ed.  366; 
Burgess  v.  Salmon,  97  U.  S.  382,  24  L.  ed.  1104;  In  re  Dorsey,  5  R.  I. 
190;  Lindzey  v.  State,  65  Miss.  543,  5  South.  99,  7  Am.  St.  Rep.  675. 

22  Calder  v.  Bull,  3  Dall.  390-393,  1  L.  ed.  648;  Fletcher  v.  Peck, 
6  Cr.  138,  3  L.  ed.  162;  Watson  v.  Mercer,  8  Pet.  110,  8  L.  ed.  876; 
Cummings  v.  Missouri,  4  Wall.  330,  18  L.  ed.  356;  Medley,  Petitioner, 
134  U.  S.  171,  10  S.  Ct.  384,  33  L.  ed.  835;  Hartnung  v.  People,  22 
N.  Y.  106;  Shepherd  v.  People,  35  N.  Y.  406;  Ratzky  v.  People,  29 
N.  Y.  124;  Beard  v.  State,  74  Md,  132,  21  Atl.  701;  State  v.  Mc- 
Donald, 20  Minn.  136;  In  re.  Petty,  22  Kan.  477. 

23  Calder  v.  Bull,  3  Dall.  397,  1  L.  ed.  648;  Cummings  v.  Missouri, 
4  Wall.  331,  18  L.  ed.  356;  Duncan  v.  Missouri,  152  U.  S.  382,  14  S. 
Ct.  570,  38  L.  ed.  485;  Kring  v.  Missouri,  107  U.  S.  235,  2  S.  Ct.  449, 
27  L.  ed.  506;  Hart  v.  State,  40  Ala.  22,  88  Am.  Dec.  756;  State  v. 
Bond,  4  Jones  (N.  C),  10;  State  v.  Johnson,  12  Minn.  484,  93  Am. 
Dec.  247.  And  see  United  States  v.  Hughes,  8  Ben.  30,  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  15,416. 

24  Moore  v.  State,  43  N.  J.  L.  203,  39  Am.  Rep.  558;  People  t. 
Lord,  12  Hun.  282;  State  v.  Keith,  63  N.  C.  140;  State  v.  Sneed,  25 
Tex.  Supp.  66. 


For  prohibition  applicable  to  Congress,  see  art.  I,  §  9,  cl.  3. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1      Ex  Post  Facto  Laws.  254 

arises  from  the  protection  afforded  by  the  laws  of  another  jur- 
isdiction, an  extradition  treaty  providing  for  the  surrender  of  a 
fugitive  cannot  be  deemed  ex  post  facto.25  Amendatory  stat- 
utes merely  changing  the  designation  of  a  crime  punishable 
when  committed  are  not  open  to  objection;26  but  where  a  stat- 
ute denning  and  punishing  an  offense  has  been  repealed,  it 
would  seem  that  the  repeal  of  the  repealing  statute  would  be 
ex  post  facto  as  to  an  offense  committed  while  the  original  stat- 
ute was  in  force.27  A  statute  taking  away  the  power  of  the 
jury  to  determine  the  degree  of  punishment  for  murder,  and 
fixing  the  penalty  for  murder  in  the  first  degree  at  death  can- 
not retroact.28 

Punishment  has  been  defined  as  the  penalty  imposed  for  a 
transgression  of  the  law,29  and  every  law  that  inflicts  a  greater 
penalty  than  the  law  annexed  to  the  crime  when  committed  is 
ex  post  facto.30  A  slight  change  in  the  punishment  will  render 
the  law  objectionable  unless  it  is  manifest  that  the  punishment 
prescribed  is  not  greater  than  under  the  previous  law;31  it  is 
burflcient  to  show  that  it  might  be  so  although  that  is  not  its 
necessary  effect.32  Nor  is  the  extent  to  which  the  punishment 
is  increased  of  any  moment  in  determining  the  ex  post  facto 
character  of  a  law.33     So  a  law  providing  for  solitary  confine- 

25  In  re  De  Giacomo,  12  Blatchf.  401,  Fed  Cas.  No.  3747. 

26  State  v.  Baldwin,  45  Conn.  134;  Sage  v.  State,  127  Ind.  15,  26 
N.  E.  667;  Commonwealth  v.  Sullivan,  150  Mass.  315,  23  N.  E.  47; 
Randolph  v.  Larned,  27  N.  J.  Eq.  557;  Powers  v.  Shepard,  48  N.  Y. 
540. 

27  State  v.  Keith,  63  N.  C.  140;  Hartnung  v.  People,  22  N.  Y.  95. 
Contra,  Commonwealth  v.  Getehell,  16  Pick.  452;  Commonwealth  v. 
Mott,  21  Pick.   492. 

08  Marion  v.  State,  16  Neb.  349,  20  N.  W.  289. 

29  Miller,  J.,  in  Ex  parte  Garland,  4  Wall.  393,  18  L.  ed.  366. 

30  Calder  v.  Bull,  3  Dall.  390-393,  1  L.  ed.  648. 

31  Hartnung  v.  People,  22  N.  Y.  106;  Ratzky  v.  People,  29  N.  Y. 
104. 

32  Beard  v.  State,  74  Md.  132,  21  Atl.  701;  Lindzey  v.  State,  65 
Miss.  545,  7  Am.  St.  Rep.  676,  5  South.  100. 

33  Cummings  v.  Missouri,  4  Wall.  277,  18  L.  ed.  356;  Ex  parte  Gar- 
land, 4  Wall.  333,  18  L.  ed.  366;  In  re  Medley,  134  U.  S.  166,  10  S. 
Ct.  384,  33  L.  ed.  835. 


255  Ex  Post  Facto  Laws.       Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

ment  until  the  execution  of  a  death  sentence  is  void  as  to  prior 
offenses;34  as  also  is  a  law  changing  a  penalty  from  hanging  to 
hard  labor  until  such  time  as  the  governor  should  fix  the  date 
of  execution;35  a  law  withdrawing  deductions  from  a  term  of 
imprisonment  for  good  behavior;36  a  law  making  what  was 
formerly  a  misdemeanor  a  felony;37  a  law  increasing  costs  on 
conviction.37  a 

A  statute  imposing  a  heavier  punishment  upon  one  previously 
convicted  of  a  felony  does  not  impose  an  additional  imprison- 
ment for  former  crimes,  and  so  is  not  ex  post  facto;38  such  a 
statute  merely  provides  a  rule  for  judging  the  severity  of  the 
sentence  which  should  be  imposed,39  and  the  increased  penalty 
is  intended  as  a  punishment  for  persistence  in  crime.40 

Where  the  law  in  force  at  the  time  an  offense  is  committed 
provides  for  imprisonment  at  hard  labor,  a  law  authorizing  the 
leasing  of  convicts  does  not  increase  punishment,41  and  a  law 
aiming  at  the  improvement  of  prison  discipline  is  not  objection- 
able  although  it  may    impose   burdens  upon   those    under  sen- 

34  In  re  Medley,  134  U.  S.  171,  10  S.  Ct.  384,  33  L.  ed.  835.  But 
see  In  re  Tyson,  13  Colo.  484.  22  Pac.  810,  6  L.  R.  A.  472. 

35  In  re  Petty,  22  Kan.  477. 

3  6  Murphy  v.  Commonwealth,  172  Mass.  269,  70  Am.  St.  Eep.  271, 
52  N.  E.  507,  43  L.  R.  A.  154. 

37  State  v.  Smith.  62  Minn.  542,  64  N.  W.  1022. 
37a  Caldwell  v.  State,  55  Ala.  133. 

38  Moore  v.  Missouri,  159  U.  S.  677,  16  S.  Ct.  179,  40  L.  ed.  301; 
McDonald  v.  Massachusetts,  180  U.  S.  313,  21  S.  Ct.  389,  45  L.  ed. 
542;  Ex  parte  Gutierrez,  45  Cai.  430;  Ross'  Case,  2  Pick.  165. 

39  McDonald  v.  Massachusetts,  180  U.  S.  313,  21  S.  Ct.  389,  45 
L.  ed.  542;  Commonwealth  v.  Murphy,  174  Mass.  374,  75  Am.  St.  Rep. 
357,  54  N.  E.  862,  48  L.  R.  A.  393;  People  v.  Stanley,  47  Cal.  113,  17 
Am.  Rep.  401;  McGuire  v.  State,  47  Md.  485;  Kelly  v.  People,  115 
111.  583,  56  Am.  Rep.  184.  4  N.  E.  644. 

40  McDonald  v.  Massachusetts,  180  U.  S.  313,  21  S.  Ct.  389,  45  L. 
ed.  542;  People  v.  Raymond,  96  N.  Y.  38;  State  v.  Wilbor,  1  R.  I.  199, 
36  Am.  Dec.  245;  Commonwealth  v.  Graves,  155  Mass.  163,  29  N.  E. 
579,  16  L.  R.  A.  256;  Ingalls  v.  State,  48  Wis.  647,  4  N.  W.  785;  Rand 
v.  Commonwealth,  9  Gratt.  738. 

41  Mason  etc.  Co.  v.  Main  Jellico  etc.  Co.,  87  Ky.  467,  9  S.  W. 
391;  State  v.  McCauley,  15  CaL  456. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1      Ex  Post  Facto  Laws.  25G 

tence.42  Eegulations  as  to  the  hour  and  place  of  execution  and 
as  to  the  height  of  the  inclosure  and  the  number  of  persons 
present  do  not  increase  the  punishment.13 

Laws  mitigating  the  punishment  prescribed  by  previous  laws 
are  not  repugnant  to  this  clause  ;44  e.  g.,  a  law  changing  a  penalty 
from  death  to  life  imprisonment,45  changing  penalty  from 
whipping  and  imprisonment  in  the  common  jail  to  imprison- 
ment in  the  penitentiary,46  repealing  a  provision  fixing  the 
minimum  penalty,47  decreasing  the  maximum  penalty.48  Th>c 
mitigation,  however,  must  consist  in  the  remission  of  some  sep- 
arable part  of  the  penalty;  if  one  penalty  is  merely  substituted 
for  another,  the  courts  will  refuse  to  apply  either.49 

A  statute  changing  the  rules  of  evidence  and  receiving  less 
or  different  evidence  than  the  previous  statute  required  to  con- 
vict, is  ex  post  facto.50  So  the  repeal  of  a  law  which  makes  a 
conviction  for  a  lesser  degree  of  homicide  conclusive  of  inno- 
cence of  the  greater  is  void  as  to  a  prior  offense.51  This  is  true 
of  a  statute  requiring  only  the  testimony  of  an  accomplice  to 
convict    where  the    previous    law  required    corroborative    evi- 

42  Hartnung  v.  People,  22  N.  Y.  95,  105;  Lindzey  v.  State,  65  Miss. 
545,  7  Am.  St.  Kep.  676,  5  South.  100;  In  re  Miller,  110  Mich.  677, 
64  Am.  St.  Eep.  377,  68  N.  W.  990,  3-4  L.  R.  A.  398. 

♦3  Holden  v.  Minnesota,  137  IT.  S.  491,  11  S.  Ct.  143,  34  L.  ed.  734. 

44  Calder  v.  Bull,  3  Dall.  391,  1  L.  ed.  648;  Lynn  v.  State,  84  Md. 
7S,  35  Atl.  22;  People  v.  Hayes,  140  N.  Y.  491,  37  Am.  St.  Eep.  576, 
35  X.  E.  952,  23  L.  R.  A.  830;  Commonwealth  v.  Wyman,  12  Cush. 
239.  And  see  Turner  v.  State,  40  Ala.  21,  29;  Moore  v.  State,  40  Ala. 
49;  Strong  v.  State,  1  Blaekf.  193. 

45  Commonwealth  v.  Gardner,  11  Gray,  438.  But  see  Shepherd  v. 
People,   25   N.   Y.   415. 

46  State  v.  Kent,  65  N.  C.  312;  State  v.  Ratts,  63  N.  C.  503. 

4  7  People  v.  Hayes,  140  N.  Y.  491,  37  Am.  St.  Rep.  576,  35  N.  E. 
952,  23  L.  R.  A.  830. 

4S  LyDn  v.  State,  84  Md.  78,  35  Atl.  22. 

49  Lindzey  v.  State,  65  Miss.  545,  7  Am.  Sfc,  Rep.  674,  5  South.  100. 

50  Calder  v.  Bull,  3  Dall.  391;  Cunrmings  v.  Missouri,  4  Wall.  329, 
1  L.  ed.  64S;  Duncan  v.  Missouri,  152  U.  S.  382,  14  S.  Ct.  570,  38  L. 
ed.  485;  Gilbson  v.  Mississippi,  162  U.  S.  590,  16  S.  Ct.  904,  40  L.  ed. 
1075.  But  see  Moore  v.  State,  14  Vroom,  203,  39  Am.  Rep.  569, 
quest  inning  this  phase  of  the  rule. 

51  Kring  v.  Missouri,  107  U.  S.  22S,  2  S.  Ct.  449,  27  L.  ed.  506. 


257  Ex  Post  Facto  Laws.       Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

dence,52  a  statute  permitting  conviction  upon  circumstantial 
evidence  where,  before,  direct  evidence  was  required,53  or  a 
statute  declaring  that  the  criminal  act  of  an  agent  is  presumed 
to  be  the  act  of  his  principal.54  But  a  statute  merely  enlarg- 
ing the  class  of  persons  competent  to  testify  is  not  objection- 
able.55 

Restriction  of  Phrase  to  Penal  Laws. 


Ex  post  facto  laws  within  the  prohibition  of  this  clause  in- 
clude only  criminal  laws,  and  not  retrospective  laws,  civil  in 
their  nature;56  but  while  the  provision  is  aimed  against  crimi- 
nal laws,  it  cannot  be  evaded  by  giving  civil  form  to  that  which 
is  substantially  criminal,57  and  the  law  to  be  ex  post  facto  need 
not  involve  the  question  of  personal  liberty;  the  imposition  of 
any  penalty  or  forfeiture  cannot  be  retroactive.58 

The  so-called  test-oath  acts  excluding  persons  guilty  of  past 
acts  of  rebellion  from  the  practice  of  their  professions  inflict  a 

52  Hart  v.  State,  40  Ala.  22  88  Am.  Dec.  756. 

53  State  v.  Johnson,  12  Minn.  484,  93  Am.  Dec.  247. 

54  State  v.  Bond,  4  Jones  (N.  C),  10. 

55  Mrous  v.  State,  36  Tex.  Cr.  Eep.  597,  37  Am.  St.  Kep.  834. 

56  Calder  v.  Bull,  3  Dall.  390,  1  L.  ed.  648;  Ogden  v.  Saunders,  12 
Wheat.  266,  6  L.  ed.  606;  Baltimore  etc.  E.  B.  v.  Nesbit,  10  How.  402, 
13  L.  ed.  469;  Carpenter  v.  Commonwealth,  17  How.  463, 15  L.  ed.  127; 
Locke  v.  New  Orleans,  4  Wall.  173,  IS  L.  ed.  334;  Ex  parte  Garland, 
4  Wall.  390,  18  L.  ed.  366;  In  re  Sawyer,  124  U.  S.  219,  8  S.  Ct.  492, 
31  L.  ed.  402;  Albee  v.  May,  2  Paine,  74,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  134;  United 
States  v.  Gibert,  2  Sum.  101,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,204;  Holman  v.  Bank, 
12  Ala.  417;  Aldridge  v.  Tuscumbia  etc.  E.  E.,  2  Stew.  &  P.  199,  23 
Am.  Dec.  312;  Boston  v.  Cummins,  16  Ga.  107,  60  Am.  Dec.  720;  Coles 
v.  Madison  County,  Breese,  156,  12  Am.  Dec.  163;  Danville  v.  Pace, 
25  Gratt.  1,  18  Am.  Rep.  669;  Gladney  v.  Sydnor,  172  Mo.  318,  95 
Am.  St.  Eep.  517,  72  S.  W.  554,  60  L.  E.  A.  880;  Burch  v.  Newbury, 
10  N.  Y.  374;  People  v.  Howker,  152  N.  Y.  234,  46  N.  E.  608;  Foster 
v.  Police  Commissioners,  102  Cal.  483,  41  Am.  St.  Eep.  194,  37  Pac. 
763;  Bridgeport  v.  Hubbell,  5  Conn.  240;  Elliott  v.  Mayfield,  4  Ala. 
417;  Wilder  v.  Lumpkin,  4  Ga.  209. 

57  Oummings  v.  Missouri,  4  Wall.  328,  18  L.  ed.  356;  Burgess  v. 
Salmon,  97  U.  S.  385,  27  L.  ed.  359;  Howker  v.  New  York,  170  U.  S. 
196,  18  S,  Ct.  573,  42  L.  ed.  1002. 

58  Locke  v.  New  Orleans,  4  Wall.  173,  18  L.  ed.  334;  United  States 
v.  Hughes,  8  Ben.  29,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,416. 

Note3  on  Constitution — 17 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1       Ex  Post  Facto  Laws.  258 

penalty  for  past  acts  and  are  equally  as  repugnant  to  this 
clause  as  acts  imposing  a  penalty  of  death  or  imprisonment.59 
So  also  as  to  a  law  precluding  suitors  who  could  not  take  a  pre- 
scribed oath  from  petitioning  for  a  rehearing  previously  allowed 
them.60  A  statute  partaking  of  both  a  criminal  and  a  civil 
nature  may,  however,  retroact  in  its  civil  aspect;  as  a  statute 
taxing  purchases  for  the  previous  year  and  imposing  a  penalty 
for  failure  to  make  returns,61  or  a  statute  prohibiting  sales  of 
liquor  operating  necessarily  to  prevent  sales  of  liquor  previously 
manufactured.62 

Statutes  prescribing  the  causes  for  which  divorce  may  be 
granted  do  not  necessarily  punish  a  crime  or  an  immoral  act, 
and  such  causes  may  be  applied  to  secure  the  dissolution  of  mar- 
riages already  contracted,63  and  this  is  true  of  a  law  authoriz- 
ing the  judge  granting  a  divorce  to  forbid  the  guilty  party  to 
marry  during  the  others  lifetime;64  but  a  law  authorizing  the 
granting  of  a  divorce  for  adultery,  an  offense  previously  puni li- 
able only  by  fine,  has  Been  held  ex  post  facto  as  to  previous  of- 
fenses.65 

In  the  absence  of  a  constitutional  provision  prescribing  the 
qualifications  of  electors,  the  franchise  may  be  conferred  as  the 
legislature  deems  proper;66  the  withholding  of  the  franchise 
from  persons  guilty  of  crime  cannot  be  deemed  the  infliction  of 

59  Cummings  v.  Missouri,  4  Wall.  323,  18  L.  ed.  356;  Ex  parte 
Garland,  4  Wall.  377,  18  L.  ed.  366;  Murphy  and  Glover  Cases,  ±1 
Mo.  370;  State  v.  Bermoudy,  36  Mo.  279;  State  v.  McAdoo,  36  Mo. 
452;  State  v.  Adams,  44  Mo.  570. 

60  Pierce  v.  Carskadon,  16  Wall.  239,  reversing  4  VV.  Va.  248,  6 
Am.  Rep.  292. 

61  State  v.  Bell,  Phill.  (N.  C.)    81. 

62  State  v.  Paul,  5  R.  I.  190. 

63  Elliott  v.  Elliott,  38  Md.  362;  Jones  v.  Jones,  2  Over.  2;  Carson 
v.  Carson,  40  Miss.  349;  Hickman  v.  Hickman,  1  Wash-  257,  24  Pae. 
445,  22  Am.  St.  Rep.  148. 

64  Elliott  v.  Elliott,  38  Md.  362. 

65  Dickinson  v.  Dickinson,  3  Murph.   (N.  C.)   330,  9  Am.  Dec.  609. 

66  Murphy  v.  Ramsey,  114  U.  S.  43,  5  S.  Ct.  747,  29  L.  ed.  47; 
Shepherd  v.  Grimmett,  3  Idaho,  403,  31  Pac.  795;  Anderson  v.  Baker, 
23  Md.  605;  Blair  v.  Ridgley,  41  Mo.  171,  97  Am.  Dee.  252.  But  see 
Green  v.  Shumway,  39  N.  Y.  424. 


259  Ex  Post  Facto  Laws.      Art.  I.  §  10,  CI.  1 

a  punishment  prohibited  by  this  clause,67  and  persons  claiming 
the  right  to  vote  may  be  required  to  take  an  expurgatory  oath.68 

An  act  disqualifying,  as  jurors,  persons  previously  convicted 
of  crimes  does  not  punish  anew  the  offenses  of  such  persons,  and 
is  not  ex  post  facto.69 

It  is  within  the  police  powers  of  a  state  to  require  that  prac- 
titioners of  medicine  shall  be  of  good  moral  character,  and  the 
exclusion  of  ex-convicts  from  the  right  to  practice  is  not  objec- 
tionable as  applied  to  one  punished  before  its  passage.70  A 
law  requiring  the  registration  of  medical  practitioners  is  not 
objectionable  because  it  applies  to  physicians  already  licensed.71 

A  law  repealing  a  prior  law  before  the  performance  of  acts 
necessary  to  give  vested  rights  is  not  ex  post  facto,72  nor  is  a 
law  prescribing  the  conditions  under  which,  alone,  a  thing  may 
be  used  in  future,73  nor  a  law  regulating  escheats,  without  ref- 
erence to  crimes,  pains  or  penalties.74 

Laws  Relating  to  Criminal  Procedure. 


In  applying  the  prohibition  as  to  ex  post  facto  laws,  a  dis- 
tinction is  to  be  drawn  between  statutes  objectionable  as  alter- 
ing rules  of  evidence  and  those  relating  to  matters  of  proced- 
ure.75 So  long  as  a  change  of  procedure  deprives  an  accused 
person  of  no  substantial  rights,  so  as  to  "alter  his  situation  to 

67  Murphy  v.  Ramsey,  114  U.  S.  42,  43,  5  S.  Ot.  747,  29  L.  ed. 
47;  Washing-ton  v.  State,  75  Ala.  582,  51  Am.  Eep.  479. 

68  Davis  v.  Beason,  133  U.  S.  345-347,  10  S.  Ct.  299,  33  L.  ed. 
637;  Shepherd  v.  Grimmett,  3  Idaho,  403,  31  Pac.  795;  Wooley  v. 
Watkins,  2  Idaho.  590,  22  Pac.  102. 

69  Garrett  v.  Weinberg,  54  S.  C.  144,  31   S.  E.   345. 

70  Howker  v.  New  York,  170  TJ.  S.  191,  IS  S.  a.  578,  42  L.  ed. 
1002,  affirming   152  N.  Y.  240,  56  N.  E.  608. 

71  Eeetz  v.  Michigan,  188  TJ.  S.  505,  23  S.  Ot.  390,  47  L.  ed.  563. 

72  Van  Home  v.  Dorrance,  2  Dall.  304,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,857. 

73  Evans  v.  Jordan,  9  Cr.  199,  3  L.  ed.  704;  Evans  v.  Weiss,  2 
Wash.  C.  C.  342,  Fed.  Cas.   No.  4572. 

74  White  v.  Wayne,   Charlt.   194. 

75  Duncan  v.  Missouri,  152  TJ.  S.  382,  14  S.  Ct.  570,  38  L.  ed.  485; 
Thompson  v.  Utah,  170  U.  S.  352,  18.  S.  Ct.  620,  42  L.  ed.  1061; 
Moore  v.  State,  43  N.  J.  L.  214,  39  Am.  Eep.  568;  State  v.  Bond, 
4  Jones,  10;  Mrous  v.  State,  31  Tex.  Cr.  Eep.  599,  37  Am.  St-  Eep. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1      Ex  Post  Facto  Laws.  260 

his  disadvantage,"  it  is  unobjectionable.  Changes  in  rules  reg- 
ulating the  admission  of  testimony  do  not  always  contravene 
this  provision;  e.  g.,  statutes  enlarging  the  class  of  persons  com- 
petent to  testify,76  or  admitting  evidence  of  a  particular  kind 
to  prove  an  issue  of  fact.77  Such  statutes  do  not  alter  the  de- 
gree or  lessen  the  amount  of  proof  necessary  to  conviction  of 
a  crime  at  the  time  it  was  committed.78 

An  accused  person  has  no  vested  right  to  be  tried  in  the  exact 
mode,  in  all  respects,  as  was  prescribed  by  law  at  the  time  the 
offense  charged  against  him  was  committed.79  So  a  law  chang- 
ing the  place  of  trial  passed  after  the  commission  of  an  of- 
fense is  not  ex  post  facto,80  nor  is  a  law  merely  changing  the 
structure  of  the  courts,81  increasing  the  number  of  trial  judges 
within  a  certain  jurisdiction,82  transferring  jurisdiction  from 
one  court  to  another,83  creating  new  courts  or  conferring  new 
jurisdiction,84  dispensing  with  preliminary  examinations  before 

835,  21  S.  W.  764;  Walston  v.  Commonwealth,  16  B.  Mon.  37;  Peoplo 
ex  rel.  v.  McDonald,  5  Wyo,  533,  42  Pac.  17,  29  L.  E.  A.  834; 
State  v.  Hoyt,  47  Conn.  532. 

76  Hopt  v.  Utah,  110  U.  S.  589,  4  S.  Ct.  202,  28  L.  ed.  262;  Mrous 
v.  State,  31  Tex.  Cr.  Rep.  599,  37  Am.  St.  Rep.  835,  21  S.  W.  764; 
Laughlin  v.  Commonwealth,  13  Bush,  261.  And  see  Commonwealth 
v.  Homer,  153  Mass.  343,  26  N.  E.  872. 

77  Thompson  v.  Missouri,  171  U.  S.  387,  18  S.  Ct.  922,  43  L.  ed. 
204,  affirming  141  Mo.  417,  42   S.  W.   951. 

78  Hopt  v.  Utah,  110  U.  S.  589,  4  S.  Ct.  202,  28  L.  ed.  262;  Robin- 
son v.  State,  84  Ind.  452. 

79  Thompson  v.  Utah,  170  U.  S.  351,  42  L.  ed.  1061;  Thompson 
v.  Missouri,  171  U.  S.  388,  18  S.  Ct.  922,  43  L.  ed.  204. 

80  Gut  v.  State,  9  Wall.  37,  38,  19  L.  ed.  573;  Cook  v.  United 
States,  138  U.  S.  183,  11  S.  Ct.  26S,  34  L.  ed.  906. 

81  Duncan  v.  Missouri,  152  U.  S.  382,  14  S.  Ct.  570,  38  L.  ed. 
485;  Moore  v.  Missouri,  159  U.  S.  679,  16  S.  Ct.  182,  40  L.  ed  301. 

82  State  v.  Thompson,  141  Mo.  417,  42  S.  W.  951. 

83  State  v.  Welch,  65  Vt.  54,  25  Atl.  901;  State  v.  Cooler,  30  S. 
C.  105,  8  S.  E.  692,  3  L.  R.  A.  181. 

84  Anderson  v.  O'Donnell,  29  S.  C.  355,  13  Am.  St.  Rep.  728,  7 
S.  E.  523,  1  L.  R.  A.  632;  State  v.  Sullivan,  14  Rich.  281;  Common- 
wealth v.  PhilUpps,  11  Pick.  28. 


261  Ex  Post  Facto  Laws.      Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

police  magistrates;85  nor  is  a  law  repealing  a  law  entitling  an 
accused  to  a  change  of  venue  upon  showing  certain  facts.86 

Laws  changing  the  mode  of  charging  a  crime  relate  solely  to 
procedure,  and  a  change  may  authorize  a  charge  by  either  in- 
dictment or  information,87  or  prescribe  information  in  place  of 
indictment.8S  So  also  a  law  validating  defective  indictments,89 
or  allowing  amendments  thereto,90  or  authorizing  the  correc- 
tion of  clerical  errors  in  sentences,91  are  valid  as  to  prior  of- 
fenses. 

A  statute  regulating  the  selection  of  grand  and  petit  juries, 
and  prescribing  their  qualifications,  may  retroact;92  as  also  a 
statute  changing  the  mode  of  summoning  juries,93  or  allowing 
the  state  a  certain  number  of  peremptory  challenges,94  or  reduc- 
ing the  number  of  peremptory  challenges,95  or  making  the  jury 
judges  of  the  facts  alone,  instead  of  the  law  and  the  facts.96 
The  number  of  grand  jurors  necessary  to  find  an  indictment  may 
be  reduced;97  but  a  law  providing  for  the  trial  of  persons  ac- 
es In  re  Wright,  3  Wyo.  481,  31  Am.  St.  Eep.  97,  27  Pae.  566,  13 
L.  K.  A.  748, 

86  People  ex  rel.  v.  McDonald,  5  Wyo.  533,  42  Pae.  17,  29  L. 
E.  A.  834.  But  see  People  v.  Powell,  87  Cal.  359,  25  Pae.  484,  11  L. 
E.  A.  75. 

87  People  v.  Campbell,  59  Cal.  243,  43  Am.  Eep.  257;  Sage  v.  Stat.?, 
127  Ind.  19,  26  N.  E.  669;  In  re  Wright,  3  Wyo.  481,  31  Am.  St.  Eep. 
97,  27  Pae.  566,  13  L.  E.  A.  748. 

88  Lybarger  v.  State,  2  Wash.  557,  27  Pae.  450. 

89  State  v.  Sears,  Phill.  (N.  C.)  146;  Commonwealth  v.  Bean. 
Thach.  C.  C.  85. 

90  State  v.  Manning,  14  Tex.  402. 

91  Ex  parte  Bethurum,  66  Mo.  545. 

92  Gibson  v.  Mississippi,  162  U.  S.  589,  16  S.  Ct.  904,  40  L.  ed. 
1075. 

93  Perry  v.  Commonwealth,  3  Gratt.   632. 

94  Walston  v.  Commonwealth,  16  B.  Mon.  15;  State  v.  Evan,  13 
Minn.  370;  Warren  v.  Commonwealth,  37  Pa.  St.  45;  Walter  v.  People, 
32  N.  Y.  147;  Commonwealth  v.  Dorsey,  103  Mass.  412;  Jones  v. 
State,  1  Ga.  610. 

95  Eeynolds  v.  State,  1  Ga.  222;  Perry  v.  Commonwealth,  3  Gratt. 
632. 

96  Marion  v.  State,  20  Neb.  233,  57  Am.  Eep.  825,  29  N.  W.  911. 

97  State  v.  Ah  Jim,  9  Mont.  167,  23  Pae.  76, 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1      Ex  Post  Facto  Laws.  262 

cused  of  felony  by  a  jury  of  eight  persons  is  void  as  to  a  pre- 
vious offense,98  as  also  is  a  statute  depriving  the  accused  of  the 
right  to  object  to  an  incompetent  grand  juror,"  and  a  statute 
authorizing  the  jury  to  fix  the  penalty  upon  conviction.100 
Other  examples  of  laws  relating  to  procedure  only,  and  so  not 
ex  post  facto,  are:  statutes  requiring  the  defense  of  insanity 
to  be  specially  pleaded;101  allowing  counsel  for  the  prosecution 
to  close  as  well  as  to  open  the  argument  to  the  jury;102  giving 
to  the  state  the  right  to  appeal  from  orders  granting  new 
trials;103  allowing  the  time  and  place  of  execution,  and  pre- 
scribing the  number  of  persons  who  may  witness  it.104 

98  Thompson  v.  Utah,  170  U.  S.  350,  18  S.  Ct.  620,  42  L.  ed.  1061. 

99  Martin  v.  State,  22  Tex.  214. 

100  Holt  v.  State,  2  Tex.  363,  and  see  Dawson  v.  State,  6  Tex.  347. 
ioi   Perry  v.  State,  87  Ala.  30. 

102  People  v.  Mortimer,  46  Cal.  114. 

103  Mallett  v.  North  Carolina,  181  U.  S.  597,  21  S.  Ct.  730,  45  L. 
ed.  1015. 

104  Holden  v.  Minnesota,  137  U.  S.  491,  11  S.  Ct.  143,  34  L.  ed. 
734. 


263  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  1,  §  10,  CI.  1 

Or  law  impairing  the  obligation  of  contracts. 

Scope  of  the  "Obligation  Clause"' — In  General. 

The  prohibition  against  the  passage  of  laws  impairing  the 
obligation  of  contracts  is  confined  to  the  states;1  but  it  cannot 
be  nullified  by  any  congressional  act  purporting  by  authoriza- 
tion or  ratification  to  give  effect  to  a  state  law  or  constitution  in 
conflict  with  the  constitution  of  the  United  States.2  One  of 
the  great  objects  of  the  constitution  was  to  preserve  the  invio- 
lability of  contracts,3  and  to  secure  the  observance  of  good 
faith  in  the  stipulations  of  the  parties  to  a  contract.4  But  the 
purpose  was  to  protect  rights  and  not  mere  incidental  advan- 
tages derived  indirectly  from  contracts.5 

The  prohibition  goes  to  the  power  of  the  state,  and  not  to 
the  manner  or  character  of  its  action,6  and  the  body  upon 
which  it  rests  is  the  legislative  department  of  the  state.7  The 
states  having  been  forbidden  absolutely  to  pass  laws  impairing 
the  obligation  of  contracts,8  a  law  having  that  effect  is  null  and 

1  Satterlee  v.  Matthewson,  2  Pet.  416,  7  L.  ed.  458;  In  re  Klein, 
1  How.  277;  Legal  Tender  Cases,  12  Wall.  550,  20  L.  ed.  287;  White 
v.  Hart,  13  Wall.  646,  20  L.  ed.  685;  Walker  v.  Whitehead,  16  Wall. 
318,  21  L.  ed.  357;  Home  Ins.  Co.  v.  City  Council,  93  U.  S.  121,  23 
L.  ed.  825;  Evans-Snider-Buel  Co.  v.  MeFadden,  105  Fed.  293,  53 
L.  R.  A.  900;  Bloomer  v.  Stolley,  5  McLean,  158,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1559; 
Evans  v.  Eaton,  1  Pet.  C.  C.  337,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4559;  Gunn  v.  Barry, 
8  Bank.  Reg.  1;  In  re  Smith,  2  Woods,  460,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,996; 
Kunzler  v.  Kohaus,  5  Hill,  325;  Metropolitan  Bank  v.  Van  Dyck, 
27  N.  Y.  400:  MayeT  v.  Knight,  27  Tex.  719.  See  Hepburn  v.  Gris- 
wold,  8  Wall.  623,  19  L.  ed.  513,  where  it  was  declared  that  an  act 
of  Congress  operating  directly  to  impair  contract  obligations  would 
be  inconsistent  with  the  spirit   of  the   constitution. 

2  White  v.  Hart,  13  Wall.  646,  20  L.  ed.  685,  39  Ga.  306;  Gunn 
v.  Barry,  S  Bank.  Reg.  1;  In  re  Kennedy,  2  Rich.,  N.  S.,  216;  Cal- 
houn v.  Calhoun,   2  Rich.,  N.   S.,  283. 

3  Murray  v.  Charleston,  96  U.  S.  449,  24  L.  ed.  760. 

4  Garrison  v.  New  York,  21  Wall.  203,  22  L.  ed.  612. 

5  Oehiltree  v.  Railroad,  21  Wall.  253,  22  L.  ed.  546. 

6  Jacoway  v.  Denton,  25   Ark.  625. 

7  Trustees-  t.  Eider,  13  Conn.  87. 

8  Hanover  Nat.  Bank  v.  Moyses,  186  IT.  S.  188,  22  S.  Ct.  857,  46 
L.   ed.   1113. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  264 

void,  and  the  courts  in  enforcing  the  contracts  affected  by  the 
law  will  apply  the  same  remedies  as  though  the  invalid  law  had 
never  been  passed.9 

Vested  Rights.* 


A  state  law  devesting  vested  rights  violates  no  constitutional 
provision  where  it  does  not  impair  the  obligation  of  a  con- 
tract;10 it  is  only  when  legislation  acts  upon  contracts  as  dis- 
tinct from  vested  rights  that  the  prohibition  against  impairing 
the  obligation  of  contracts  is  infringed.11  Accordingly  property 
acquired  under  a  contract  may  be  taken  for  public  use  without 
violating  the  prohibition,12  and  the  taking  of  a  contract  under 
condemnation  proceedings  does  not  break  its  obligations,  but 
appropriates  it,  as  it  does  tangible  property,  to  public  uses.13 

A  vested  right  is  the  power  to  do  certain  actions  or  possess 
certain  things  according  to  the  law  of  the  land,14  and  rights 
vested  under  a  law,  which  is  in  its  nature  a  contract,  cannot  be 
devested  by  the  legislature.15  A  right  is  vested  when  it  has 
already  become  a  legal  or  equitable  title,16  and  the  legislature 
has  no  power  to  devest  titles,17  or  legal  or  equitable  rights  pre- 
viously vested,18  or  to  vest  them  in  another.19     If  a  vested  right 

9  Louisiana  v.  Pillsbury,  105  U.   S.   302,  26  L.   ed.   1090. 

10  Satterlee  v.  Matthewson,  2  Pet.  413,  7  L.  ed.  458;  Baltimore 
etc.  R.  E.  v.  Nesbit,  10  How.  402,  13  L.  ed.  469;  De  Moss  v.  Newtoii, 
31  Ind.  220;  Shepherd  v.  Grimmett,  3  Idaho,  403,  31  Pac.  795;  McLure 
v.  Melton,  24  S.  C.  570,  58  Am.  Rep.  278. 

11  Charles  River  Bridge  v.  Wlarren  Bridge,  11  Pet.  582,  9  L.  ed. 
773;  Baltimore  etc.  R.  R.  v.  Nesbit,  10  How.  401,  13  L.  ed.  469; 
Calhoun  v.  Calhoun,  2  S.  C.  301. 

12  Green  v.  Biddle,  8  Wheat.  89,  5  L.  ed.  547. 

13  Long  Island  etc.  Co.  v.  Brooklyn,  166  U.  S.  691,  17  S.  Ct.  718, 
41  L.  ed.  1165. 

14  Calder  v.  Bull,  3  Dall.  394,  1  L.  ed.  648. 

15  Fletcher  v.  Peck,  6  Cr.  135,  3  L.  ed.  162. 

16  Richardson  v.  Akin,  87  111.   138. 

17  Helm  v.  Webster,  85  111.  116. 

18  Bunn   v.  Morrison,  5  Ark.  217;  Grissom  v.  Hill,  17  Ark.  489. 

19  Koenig  v.  Omaha  etc.  R.  E.  Co.,  3  Neb.  383. 

♦See,  also,  post,  pp.   273-276. 


265        Obligation  of  Contracts.  Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

acquired  under  contract  be  impaired  by  a  subsequent  statute 
the  statute  is  void  ;20  but  the  repeal  of  an  act  before  a  party  has 
taken  all  the  steps  requisite  to  give  him  a  right  under  it  does 
not  impair  the  obligation  of  a  contract.21  So  a  railroad's  right 
to  condemn  land,  unexecuted  except  by  filing  a  general  map  of 
the  proposed  route,  is  not  so  vested  as  to  make  condemnation 
by  the  state  repugnant  to  this  clause.22 

While  a  legislative  act  ought  not  to  be  given  a  retroactive 
effect  unless  the  intention  that  it  so  operate  is  clear,23  yet  ret- 
roactive laws  which  do  not  impair  the  obligation  of  contracts 
and  are  not  ex  post  facto  are  valid.24  So  a  statute  is  not  ob- 
jectionable because  it  purports  to  operate  upon  contingent  or 
conditional  rights,25  and  a  mere  expectation  of  property  in  the 
future  may  be  changed,  modified  or  abolished  by  legislative  ac- 
tion;26 only  rights  actually  vested  and  to  which  the  title  is 
complete  are  protected.27 

If  an  act  is  within  the  legislative  power  it  is  not  a  valid  ob- 

20  Bronson  v.  Kinzie,  1  How.  315,  11  L.  ed.  143;  McCraclcen  v. 
Hayward,  2  How.  612,  11  L.  ed.  397;  Von  Hoffman  v.  Quincy,  4  Wall. 
549,  18  L.  ed.  403;  State  v.  Bridges,  22  Wash.  64,  79  Am.  St.  Rep. 
914,  60  Pac.  60. 

21  Van  Home  v.  Dorrance,  2  Dall.  304,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,857;  Mo- 
bile R.  E.  Co.  v.  State,  29  Ala.  573;  Brinsfteld  v.  Carter,  2  Ga.  143; 
Wise  v.  Rogers,  24  Gratt.  169;  Huntsman,  v.  Randolph,  5  Hayw.  263; 
State  v.  Gray,  4  Wis.  380. 

22  Adirondack  Ry.  v.  New  York,  176  U.  S.  350,  20  S.  Ct.  460, 
44  L.  ed.  492. 

23  United  States  v.  Arredondo,  6  Pet.  733,  3  L.  ed.  547;  Farrell 
v.  Pingree,  5  Utah,  449,  16  Pac.  845;  Dash  v.  Van  Kleeck,  7  Johns. 
477,  5  Am.  Dec.  291. 

24  Drehman  v.  Stifle,  8  Wall.  603,  19  L.  ed.  508;  Blount  v.  Windley, 
95  U.  S.  180,  24  L.  ed.  424;  New  Orleans  v.  Pontz,  14  La.  Ann.  853; 
New  Orleans  v.  Cordivialle,  13  La.  Ann.  260;  Bay  v.  Gage,  36  Barb. 
447;  Hinton  v.  Hinton,  Phill.  (N.  C.)  410;  Tilton  v.  Swift,  40  Iowa, 
78;  Lane  v.  Nelson,  79  Pa.  St.  407. 

25  Clarke   v.   McOreary,  40   Miss.   347. 

26  Butterfield  v.  Sawyer,  187  111.  598,  79  Am.  St.  Rep.  246,  58  N. 
E.  602,  52  L.  R.  A.  75. 

27  Society,  etc.  v.  Wheeler,  2  Gall.  139,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,156;  Nelson 
v.  Allen,  1  Yerg.  360;  Officer  v.  Young,  5  Yerg.  320,  26  Am.  Dec. 
268. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1  Obligation  of  Contracts.       266 

jection  to  it  that  it  operates  to  devest  vested  rights;  such  an 
act  is  not  within  the  constitutional  prohibition,  however  re- 
pugnant it  may  be  to  the  principles  of  sound  legislation.28 

Statutory  Rights.* 


Rights  growing  out  of  statutory  provisions  may  be  modified 
by  statute  unless  they  are  in  the  nature  of  contracts.29  Mar- 
riage is  more  than  a  civil  contract;  it  is  a  relation  of  society, 
and  the  prohibition  of  this  part  of  the  clause  does  not  apply  to 
laws  regulating  or  annulling  the  relations  between  parties.30 
So  the  legislature  may  regulate  the  granting  of  divorces.31 
Dower,  while  it  is  a  legal  right,32  is  subject  to  regulation  by 
statute  without  infringing  the  prohibition;33  but  an  antenup- 
tial contract  is  protected  and  its  obligation  cannot  be  impaired 
by  subsequent  legislation.34     A  statute  giving  to  a  husband  the 

28  L..ne  v.  Nelson,  79  Pa.  St.  407. 

29  Cohen  v.  Wright,  22  Gal.  319;  Oriental  Bank  v.  Freeze,  18  Mc. 
109,  36  Am.  Dec.  701;  People  v.  Livingston,  6  Wend.  526;  Morse  v. 
Kice,  21  Me.  53. 

30  Maynard  v.  Hill,  125  U.  S.  214,  8  S.  Ct.  723,  31  L.  ed.  654, 
State  v.  Tutty,  41  Fed.  752;  Hunt  v.  Hunt,  131  U.  S.  clxv;  Starr  v. 
Hamilton,  Deady,  268,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,314;  Ex  parte  Kinney,  3 
Hughes,  9,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7825;  White  v.  White,  5  Barb.  474;  Fults 
v.  Fox,  9  B.  Mon.  499;  Kelly  v.  McCarthy,  3  Bradf.  7;  Noel  v.  Ewing, 
9  Ind.  37;  Jones'  Appeal,  57  Pa.  St.  369;  State  v.  Duket,  90  Wis. 
277,  48  Am.  St.  Eep.  931,  63  N.  W.  85,  31  L.  B.  A.  515. 

31  Trustees  Dartmouth  College  v.  Woodward,  4  Wheat.  629;  Bar- 
thelmy  v.  Johnson,  3  B.  Mon.  90,  38  Am.  Dec.  179;  Tolen  v.  Tolen, 
2  Blackf.  407,  21  Am.  Dec.  743;  Starr  v.  Pease,  8  Conn.  546;  Stace 
v.  Fry,  4  Mo.  172;  Campbell's  Case,  2  Bland.  Ch.  236,  20  Am.  Dec. 
377;  Harding  v.  Alden,  9  Me.  150,  23  Am.  Dec.  555;  Cabell  v.  Ca- 
bell, 1  Met.  (Ky.)  326;  Levins  v.  Sleator,  2  G.  Greene,  608;  Noel 
v.  Ewing,  9  Ind.  49;  Cronise  v.  Cronise,  54  Pa.  St.  262;  Bow  en  v. 
Blount,  48  Ala.  674. 

32  May  bury  v.  Brien,  15  Pet.  37,  10  L.  ed.  46. 

33  Starr  v.  Hamilton,  Deady,  268,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,314;  Kelly  r. 
McCarthy,  3  Bradf.  7;  Noel  v.  Ewing,  9  Ind.  37;  In  re  Barbour,  46 
Me.  9;  Lucas  v.  Sawyer,  17  Iowa,  517;  Magee  v.  Young,  40  Miss. 
164;  Lawrence  v.  Miller,  1  Sand.  516. 

34  Desnoyer  v.  Jordan,  27  Minn.   295. 


'See,  also,  note  as  to  change  of  remedy,  post,  pp.  596  et  seq. 


267  Obligation  of  Contracts.  Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

right  to  use  his  wife's  land,  with  power  to  rent  it  for  a  certain 
period,  and  which  was  in  force  at  the  time  of  marriage  has  been 
held  to  confer  contract  rights  protected  by  this  clause.35 

Liens  created  by  law  are  subject  to  the  control  of  the  legis- 
lature and  may  be  altered,  modified  or  abolished.36  So  a  stat- 
ute repealing  a  mechanic's  lien  law  is  valid,37  as  also  is  a  law 
creating  a  lien  upon  the  property  of  a  debtor  in  favor  of  an 
existing  contract.38  A  law  merely  altering  and  enlarging  the 
remedy  for  the  enforcement  of  mechanics'  liens  after  foreclos- 
ure sale  does  not  impair  the  contracts  of  the  mortgagee  or  the 
purchaser:39  nor  does  a  statute  extending  the  time  for  the 
enforcement  of  mechanics'  liens.40 

Statutes  providing  that  a  judgment  shall  constitute  a  lien 
upon  the  judgment  debtor's  property  may  apply  to  existing 
judgments,41  and  the  repeal  of  a  statute  giving  a  judgment 
creditor  a  lien  has  been  held  unobjectionable.42  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  a  law  giving  the  right  to  a  judgment  lien  has  been 
held  to    form    part  of  the    contract.43     A  statute    requiring  a 

33  ik.se  v.  Eose,  104  Ky.  48,  84  Am.  St.  Rep.  430,  4®  S.  W.  524, 
41  L.  E.  A.  353. 

36  Evans  v.  Montgomery,  4  Watts  &  S.  218;  Patin  v.  Prejean,  7 
La.  301;  Woodbury  v.  Grimes,  1  Colo.  100;  Tempteton  v.  Home,  82 
111.  401;  Wilson  v.  Simon,  91  Md.  1,  80  Am.  St.  Eep.  427,  45  Atl. 
1022. 

37  Sullivan  v.  Brewster,  1  E.  B.  Smith,  681;  Miller  v.  Moore,  1 
E.  D.  Smith.  739;  Woodbury  v.  Grimes,  1  Colo.  100;  Wilson  v.  Simon, 
91  Md.  1,  80  Am.  St.  Rep.  427,  45  Atl.  1022. 

38  Gordon  v.  Canal  Co.,  1  MeAll.  513,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5621;  Brien 
v.  Clay,  1  E.  B.  Smith,  649;  Bolton  v.  Johns.  5  Pa.  St.  145,  47  Am. 
Bee.  404.     But  see  Kinney  v.  Sherman,  28  111.  520. 

39  Eed  River  Valley  Bank  v.  Craig,  181  U.  S.  558,  21  S.  Ct.  703, 
45  L.  ed.  9<94. 

40  Garland  v.  Irrigation  Co.,  9  Utah,  360,  34  Pac.  370. 

41  Livingston  v.  Moore,  7  Pet.  546-562,  8  L.  ed.  751;  Moore  v. 
Letchford,  35  Tex.  213,  14  Am.  Rep.  367. 

42  Bank  v.  Longworth,  1  McLean,  35,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  923;  Iverson 
v.  Shorter,  9  Ala.  713;  Beck  v.  Burnett,  22  Ala.  822;  Baily  v.  Burke, 
28  Ala.  328;  Curry  v.  Landers,  35  Ala.  280;  Moore  v.  Holland,  16 
S.  C.  24;  MeCormick  v.  Alexander,  2  Ohio,  285. 

43  Murphy  v.  Gaskins,  28  Gratt.  207;  Ratcliffe  v.  Anderson,  31 
Gratt.  105,  31  Am.  Rep.  716;  Gilman  v.  Tucker,  128  N.  Y.  190,  26  Am. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1  Obligation  ok  Contracts.        2G8 

party  to  record  the  abstract  of  his  judgment  in  order  to  pre- 
serve the  lien  is  valid.44  A  statute  authorizing  the  sale  of  prop- 
erty free  from  encumbrances,  and  transferring  the  lion  thereof 
to  the  proceeds,  is  valid;45  otherwise. if  the  statute  permits  the 
sale  whether  it  brings  a  sufficient  amount  to  pay  the  encum- 
brance or  not,  or  allows  the  proceeds  of  the  property  to  be  first 
applied  to  the  payment  of  costs  other  than  those  of  the  sale.46 
A  statute  requiring  interest  to  be  paid  in  advance  in  order 
to  enable  the  mortgagor  to  remain  in  possession  is  unobjection- 
able,47 as  also  is  a  statute  giving  the  grantee  of  a  rent  charge 
the  right  of  re-entry  for  nonpayment  of  rent,48  and  an  act 
taking  away  the  priority  of  a  claim  for  rent  in  case  of  a  levy.49 
A  statute  depriving  a  lessee  of  an  action  for  forcible  entry 
and  detainer  against  a  lessor,50  or  giving  an  action  of  covenant 
against  an  assignee  of  a  leasehold  estate,  is  likewise  valid.51  A 
general  law  requiring  the  construction  of  fishways  in  dams  does 
not,  as  to  a  dam  previously  erected  under  a  special  act  of  the 
legislature,  impair  any  contract  obligations.52 

What  Constitutes  a  "law"  Within  the  Prohibition. 

This  prohibition  applies  only  to  laws  which  are  retrospective 
in  their  operation;  contracts  are  not  impaired  by  laws  passed 
prior  to  their  execution,  and  states  are  free  to  legislate  as  to 
future  contracts,53  and  it  will  not  be  presumed  that  the  con- 
st. Eep.  464,  28  N.  E.  1040,  13  L.  R.  A.  304;  Merchants'  Bank  v. 
Ballou,  98  Va.  112,  81  Am.  St.  Rep.  715,  32  S.  E.  481,  44  L.  R.  A. 
306. 

44  Tarplej-  v.  Hamer,  17  Miss.  310. 

45  Potts  v.  Water  Power  Co.,  9  N.  J.  Eq.  592 ;  Potts  v.  Xew  Jersey 
Arms  Co.,  17  N.  J.  Eq.  395. 

46  Martin  v.  Somerville,  3  Wall.  Jr.  206,  27  How.  Pr.  161,  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  9165. 

47  Stone  v.  Bassett,  4  Minn.  298. 

48  Van  Rensselaer  v.  Ball,  19  N.  Y.  100. 

49  Stocking  v.  Hunt,  3  Denio,  274. 

50  Drehman  v.  Stifle,  8  Wall.  595,  aflirming  41  Mo.  1S4,  97  Am. 
Dec.  268. 

51  Taggart  v.  McGinn,  14  Pa.   St.   155. 

52  Parker  v.  State,  111  Til.  581,  53   Am.  Rep.  643. 

53  Railroad  v.  McClure,  10  Wall.  515,  19  L.  ed.  997;  Lehigh  Water 


269  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

tract  alleged  to  be  impaired  antedated  the  statute.54  A  stat- 
ute enacted  before  the  constitution  went  into  operation,  and 
impairing  the  obligation  of  prior  contracts,  is  not  invalid  under 
this  clause;55  the  constitution  was  made  by  and  for  the  people 
of  the  United  States,  and  its  restraints  on  state  powers  do  not 
affect  laws  passed  by  a  state  before  its  admission.56  The  con- 
stitution only  prohibits  laws  impairing  the  obligation  of  con- 
tracts;57 the  legislature  cannot  alter  the  nature  and  legal  effect 
of  an  existing  contract  or  violate  its  obligation.58  A  state  can- 
not, by  any  expression  of  legislative  will  or  any  agency  what- 
ever, lessen  or  impair  the  legal  effect  or  obligation  of  any  con- 
tract valid  when  entered  into;39  but  it  may  prohibit  the  mak- 
ing of  certain  contracts  in  the  future  and  declare  such  con- 
tracts to  be  invalid.60 

Statutes  enacted  by  the  state  legislature  are  not  alone  within 
this  prohibition;  by-laws  or  ordinances  of  a  municipal  corpora- 
tion having  the  force  of  law  within  the  municipality  are  con- 
templated by  the  obligation  clause;61  and  a  state  constitutional 
provision  may  be  as  objectionable  as  a  legislative  act,62  and 

Co.  v.  Easton,  121  U.  S.  391,  7  S.  Ct.  919,  30  L.  ed.  1059;  Pinney  v. 
Nelson,  183  U.  S.  147,  22  S.  Ct.  52,  46  L.  ed.  125;  Central  Land  Co. 
v.  Laidley,  159  XL  S.  112,  16  S.  Ct.  83,  40  L.  ed.  91;  Turner  v.  Wilkes 
County,  173  U.  S.  464,  19  S.  Ct.  465,  43  L.  ed.  768. 

54  Blair  v.  Ostrander,  109  Iowa,  204,  77  Am.  St.  Eep.  532,  80  N. 
W.  330,  47  L.  E.  A.  469. 

55  Owings  v.  Speed,  5  Wheat.  421,  5  L.  ed.  124;  Blanque's  Syndic 
v.  Beale,  1  Mart.  (La.),  N.  S.,  429. 

56  League  v.  De  Young,  11  How.  203,  13  L.  ed.  657;  Herman  v. 
Phalen,  14  How.  83,  14  L.  ed.  334. 

57  Thornton  v.  Hooper,  14  Cal.  9. 

58  King  v.  Dedham  Bank,  15  Mass.  447,  8  Am.  Dee.  112. 

59  Plock  v.  Cobb,  64  Ala.  127;  Floyd  v.  Blanding,  54  Cal.  41;  Cole 
v.  La  Chambre,  31  La.  Ann.  41;  Louisiana  v.  New  Orleans,  32  La. 
Ann.  493;  Danolds  v.  State,  89  N.  Y.  36,  42  Am.  Eep.  277. 

60  Churchman  v.  Martin,  54  Ind.  380. 

61  St.  Paul  Gaslight  Co.  v.  St.  Paul,  181  U.  S.  148,  21  S.  Ct.  575, 
45  L.  ed.  788;  Southwest  Missouri  Light  Co.  v.  Joplin,  101  Fed.  23. 

62  Dodge  v.  Woolsey,  18  How.  360,  15  L.  ed.  401;  Eailroad  Co.  v. 
MeClure,  10  Wall.  511,  19  L.  ed.  997;  Delmas  v.  Insurance  Co.,  14 
Wall.  667,  20  L.  ed.  757;  Gunn  v.  Barry,  15  Wall.  623,  21  L.  ed. 
212;   Concord   v.  Portsmouth  Savings  Bank,  92  U.  S.  630,  23  L.  ed. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  270 

rights  acquired  under  one  constitution  cannot  be  impaired  by 
a  later  one  or  by  an  amendment.63 

While,  however,  a  change  in  the  state  constitution  cannot  re- 
lieve a  state  from  its  obligations  contracted  under  the  original 
constitution,64  a  constitutional  amendment  declaring  void  state 
bonds  which  are  still  in  the  possession  of  the  state  and  have  not 
passed  into  the  hands  of  a  bona  fide  holder  does  not  contravene 
this  provision.65  A  constitutional  provision  which  is  merely 
directory,  requiring  legislation  to  carry  it  into  effect,  cannot  be 
held  void;66  the  question  must  be  presented  in  a  suit  for  the 
enforcement  of  the  contract  alleged  to  be  impaired  by  the  pro- 
vision,67 and  as  a  suit  cannot  be  maintained  by  virtue  of  such 
a  constitutional  provision  without  some  reference  to  legislation 
enacted  under  it,68  all  laws  in  force  previous  to  the  enactment 

628;  Moultrie  County  v.  Savings  Bank,  92  U.  S.  635,.  23  L.  ed.  631; 
New  Orleans  Gaslight  Co.  v.  Louisiana  Light  Co.,  115  U.  S.  672,  6  S. 
Ct.  252,  29  L.  ed.  516;  Bier  v.  MeGehee,  148  U.  S.  140,  13  S.  Ct. 
580,  37  L.  ed.  397;  Houston  etc.  By.  v.  Texas,  170  U.  S.  261,  18  S. 
Ct.  610,  42  L.  ed.  1023;  In  re  McLean,  2  Bank  Eeg.  173,  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  8878;  Marsh  v.  Burroughs,  1  Woods,  463,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9112; 
Osborn  v.  Nicholson,  1  Dill.  235,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,595;  Hawkins  v. 
Filkins,  24  Ark.  286;  Jacoway  v.  Denton,  25  Ark.  625;  McNealy  v. 
Gregory,  13  Fla.  417;  Homestead  Cases,  23  Gratt.  266,  12  Am.  Eep. 
507;  Edwards  v.  Jager,  19  Ind.  407;  Logwood  v.  Planters'  Bank, 
1  Minor,  23;  Chicago  v.  Bumsey,  87  111.  348;  Ex  parte  Lee's  Bank, 
21  N.  Y.  9;  Rutland  v.  Copes,  15  Eich.  84;  Moore  v.  New  Orleans, 
32  La.  Ann.  747;  State  v.  Hickman,  9  Mont.  379,  23  Pac.  743,  8  L. 
B.  A.  403;  Powell  v.  Madison,  107  Ind.  115,  8  N.  E.  35;  Hazen  v. 
Union  Bank,  1  Sneed,  115;  Union  Bank  v.  State,  9  Yerg.  490;  Jones 
v.  Brandon,  48  Ga.  593;  Cham  bliss  v.  Jordan,  50  Ga.  81. 

63  Pacific  B.  E.  Co.  v.  McGuire,  20  Wall.  42,  22  L.  ed.  282;  Keith 
v.  Clark,  97  U.  S.  454,  24  L.  ed.  1071;  Poindexter  v.  Greenhow,  114 
U.  S.  291,  5  S.  Ct.  914,  29  L.  ed.  185;  Canal  Company's  Case,  83 
Md.   626,   35   Atl.   365. 

64  Dodge  v.  Woolsey,  18  How.  360,  15  L.  ed.  401;  Matheny  v. 
Golden,  5  Ohio  St.  361. 

65  Bier  v.  MeGehee,  148  U.  S.  140,  13  S.  Ct.  580,  37  L.  ed.  397. 

66  Groves  v.  Slaughter,  15  Pet.  500,  10  L.  ed.  800;  State  v.  Buck- 
ley, 54  Ala.  616;  In  re  Perkins,  2  Cal.  455;  Marshall  v.  Sherman,  14S 
N.  Y.  18,  51  Am.  St.  Rep.  657,  42  N.  E.  420,  34  L.  E.  A.  757. 

67  State  v.  Burke,  33  La.  Ann.  498. 

68  Morley  v.  Thayer,   3  Fed.   740. 


271  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

of  the  directory  provision  remain  in  force,  and  contracts  must 
be  neld  to  be  governed  thereby.69 

Only  municipal  ordinances  passed  under  the  supposed  author- 
ity of  a  legislative  act  become  "laws"  of  a  state  within  the  pro- 
hibition against  impairment,70  and  this  is  also  true  of  an 
ordinance  not  involving  the  exercise  of  legislative  power.71 

Judicial  decisions  construing  a  contract  or  statute  are  not 
"laws"  within  the  meaning  of  this  prohibition;72  to  come 
within  the  prohibition,  a  contract  must  be  impaired  by  legis- 
lative act  and  not  alone  by  judicial  decision.73  So  where  a 
state  may  repeal  a  law  without  impairing  the  obligation  of  ex- 
isting contracts  an  erroneous  decision  that  the  law  has  been 
repealed  does  not  impair  the  obligation  of  such  contracts;74 
but,  on  the  other  hand,  where  a  state  has  power  to  exempt  prop- 
erty from  taxation  a  decision  to  the  effect  that  a  law  so  doing 
is  unconstitutional  impairs  a  contract  created  by  that  law.75 
It  is  only  where  a  decision  gives  effect  to  a  law  alleged  to  impair 
contract  obligations  that  the  supreme  court  acquires  jurisdic- 
tion to  review  a  state  court  judgment  under  this  clause.76  A 
probate  sale  cannot  be  held  to  impair  the  obligation  of  a  con- 

60  New  Orleans  v.  Wood,  34  La.  Ann.  735;  Shelton  v.  Marshall,  16 
Tex.  351;  Marshall  v.  Sherman,  148  N.  Y.  18,  51  Am.  St.  Rep.  657, 
42  N.  E.  420,  34  L.  R.  A.  757. 

70  Murray  v.  Charleston,  96  U.  S.  440,  24  L.  ed.  760;  Hamiltou 
Gas  Light  Co.  v.  Hamilton  City,  146  U.  S.  266,  13  S.  Ct.  90,  36  L.  ed. 
963. 

71  New  Orleans  Waterworks  v.  Louisiana  Sugar  Co.,  125  U.  S.  31, 
8  S.  Ct.  748,  31  L.  ed.  607. 

72  University  v.  People,  99  U.  S.  320,  25  L.  ed.  387;  New  Orleans 
Waterworks  v.  Louisiana  Sugar  Co.,  125  U.  S.  36,  8  S.  Ct.  751,  31 
L.  ed.  607;  Hanford  v.  Davies,  163  U.  S.  279,  16  S.  Ct.  1051,  41  L. 
»d.  157;  Ray  v.  Natural  Gas  Co.,  138  Pa.  St.  592,  21  Am.  St.  Rep.  92S, 
W  Atl.  1067,  12  L.  R.  A.  290. 

73  Central  Land  Co.  v.  Laidley,  159  U.  S.  109,  16  S.  Ct.  80,  40  L. 
ed.  91. 

74  Baltzer  v.  North  Carolina,  161  U.  S.  246,  16  S.  Ct.  500,  40  L. 
ed.  684. 

75  Mobile  R.  R.  v.  Tennessee,  153  U.  S.  495,  14  S.  Ct.  971,  38  L. 
ed.  793. 

76  New  Orleans  Waterworks  Co.  v.  Louisiana,  185  U.  S.  351,  22 
S.  Ct.  691,  22  L.  ed.  936. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  272 

tract.77  While,  in  general,  legislative  action  is  necessary  in 
order  to  violate  the  provision  against  impairment,  yet  the 
law  as  established  by  judicial  construction  at  the  time  a  con- 
tract was  made  cannot  be  changed  by  judicial  construction  so 
as  to  impair  that  contract.78  If  a  contract  was  valid  at  the 
time  it  was  made  no  subsequent  legislation,  decision,  construc- 
tion or  alteration  of  the  law  can  render  it  invalid,79  and  a  pro- 
bate sale  made  under  a  law  held  valid  at  the  time  it  was  made 
must  be  sustained,80  and  partition  made  by  a  court  held  at  the 
time  to  have  jurisdiction  cannot  be  nullified  by  a  later  construc- 
tion;81 but  this  rule  does  not  require  that  the  courts  put  the 
same  construction  upon  two  successive  statutes  the  language  of 
which  is  similar.82 

77  Hanford  v.  Davies,  51  Fed.  259. 

78  Ohio  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Debolt,  16  How.  432,  14  L.  ed.  997;  Have- 
meyer  v.  Iowia  County,  &  Wall.  303,  18  L.  ed.  38;  Butz  v.  Muscatine, 
8  Wall.  584,  19  L.  ed.  490;  Olcott  v.  Supervisors,  16  Wall.  590,  21  L. 
ed.  382;  Pine  Grove  v.  Talcott,  19  Wall.  658,  22  L.  ed.  227;  Chicago 
v.  Sheldon,  9  Wall.  55,  19  L.  ed.  594;  City  v.  Lamson,  9  Wall.  486, 
19  L.  ed.  725;  Taylor  v.  Ypsilanti,  105  U.  S.  72,  26  L.  ed.  1008; 
Louisiana  v.  Pilsbury,  105  U.  S.  294,  26  L.  ed.  1090;  Shapleigh  v. 
San  Angelo,  167  U.  S.  657,  42  L.  ed.  310;  Los  Angeles  v.  Los  An- 
geles City  Water  Co.,  177  U.  S.  575,  44  L.  ed.  886. 

79  Pine  Grove  v.  Talcott,  19  Wall.  678,  20  L.  ed.  227,  affirming 
1  Flipp.  130,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,735;  Commissioners  v.  Thayer,  94  U. 
S.  642,  24  L.  ed.  133;  United  States  v.  New  Orleans,  98  U.  S.  397, 
25  L.  ed.  225;  Commissioners  v.  Lellew,  99  U.  S.  628,  25  L.  ed.  333; 
Pana  v.  Bowler,  107  U.  S.  541,  20  S.  Ct.  704,  27  L.  ed.  424;  Milner 
v.  Pensacola,  2  Woods,  641,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9619;  Foote  v.  Johnson 
County,  5  Dill.  285,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4912;  United  States  v.  Treasurer, 
1  Dill.  528,  2  Abb.  U.  S.  60,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,538;  United  States  v. 
Judges,  32  Fed.  715;  Bank  v.  Commissioners,  90  Fed.  10;  Illinois 
Cent.  B.  E.  v.  McLean  County,  17  111.  291;  Hunsaker  v.  Wright,  30 
111.  146;  Newstadit  v.  Illinois  Cent.  E.  E.,  31  111.  484;  Haskett  v. 
Maxey,  134  Ind.  191,  33  N.  E.  360,  19  L.  E.  A.  379. 

80  Hall  v.  Wells,  54  Miss.  301;  Myers  v.  Boyd,  144  Ind.  499,  43 
N.  E.  567. 

si    Levy  v.  Hitscher,  40  La.  Ann.  508,  4  South.  476. 

82  Wood  v.  Brady,  150  U.  S.  22,  14  S.  Ct.  6,  37  L.  ed.  981. 


273  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 
Retrospective  Laws.* 


The  inhibition  is  not  aimed  at  all  laws  of  a  retrospective 
nature;  such  laws  do  not  necessarily  violate  the  obligation  of 
contracts.83  Accordingly,  while  retrospective  statutes  are,  in 
general,  to  be  condemned,  and  statutes  should  be  construed,  if 
possible,  to  operate  prospectively,84  yet  if  they  do  not  violate 
the  obligation  of  contracts  or  partake  of  the  character  of  ex 
post  facto  laws  they  violate  no  constitutional  provision.85 

Kemedial  or  curative  legislation  does  not  impair  contract  ob- 
ligations, but  rather  tends  to  confirm  them.86     Of  this  nature 

83  Locke  v.  New  Orleans,  4  Wall.  173,  18  L.  ed.  334;  Watson  v. 
Mercer,  8  Pet.  Ill,  8  L.  ed.  876;  Curtis  v.  Whitney,  13  Wall.  70, 
20  L.  ed.  513;  Blount  v.  Windley,  95  U.  S.  180,  24  L.  ed.  424;  Fre-i- 
land  v.  Williams,  131  TJ.  S.  420,  9  S.  Ct.  768,  33  L.  ed.  193;  Williams 
v.  Paine,  169  TJ.  S.  79,  18  S.  Ct.  288,  42  L.  ed.  658;  Eastman  v.  Clack- 
amas County,  12  Saw.  624,  32  Fed.  31;  Atwater  v.  Seely,  1  McCrary, 
268,  2  Fed.  137;  Smith  v.  Callaghan,  66  Iowa,  555,  24  N.  W.  51;  Bald- 
win v.  Newark,  38  N.  J.  159;  Baugher  v.  Nelson,  9  Gill,  305,  52  Am. 
Dec.  698;  Wiison  v.  Hardesty,  1  Md.  Ch.  68;  Chestnut  v.  Shanes,  IS 
Ohio,  610,  47  Am.  Dec.  396. 

84  CaldeT  v.  Bull,  3  Dall.  386,  1  L.  ed.  391;  Dash  v.  Van  Kleeck,  7 
Johns.  502.  5  Am.  Dec.  308;  Davis  v.  Minor,  1  How.  (Miss.)  193,  23 
Am.  Dec.  331;  Denio  v.  Van  Riper,  16  N.  J.  L.  14;  Boston  v.  Cum- 
mins, 16  Ga.  107,  60  Am.  Dec.  720. 

85  Satterlee  v.  Matthewson,  2  Pet.  413.  7  L.  ed.  458;  Wilkinson 
v.  Leland,  2  Pet.  661,  7  L.  ed.  542;  Charles  River  Bridge  v.  Warren 
Bridge,  11  Pet.  539,  9  L.  ed.  773;  Drehman  v.  Stifle,  8  Wall.  603,  af- 
firming 41  Mo.  184,  97  Am.  Dec.  268;  Blount  v.  Windley,  95  TJ.  S. 
180,  24  L.  ed.  424;  Gray  v.  Munroe,  1  McLean,  532,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
5724;  Johnston  v.  Van  Dyke,  6  McLean,  441,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7426; 
McAfee  v.  Covington,  71  Ga.  274,  51  Am.  Rep.  265;  Elliott  v.  May- 
field,  4  Ala.  423;  Davis  v.  Ballard,  1  J.  J.  Marsh.  563;  Andrews  v. 
Russell,  7  Blackf.  574;  Wilson  v.  Hardesty,  1  Md.  Ch.  66;  Bay  v. 
Gage,  36  Barb.  447;  Wilder  v.  Lumpkin,  4  Ga.  209;  Cochran  v.  Van 
Surlay,  20  Wend.  372,  32  Am.  Dec.  573;  Burch  v.  Newbury,  10  N. 
T.  391;  Gage  v.  Gage,  66  N.  H.  294,  29  Atl.  549,  28  L.  R.  A.  829; 
Sharpless  v.  Philadelphia,  21  Pa.  St.  165,  59  Am.  Dec,  770;  Coles  v. 
Madison  County,  Breese,  156,  12  Am.  Dec.  163;  Scott  v.  Smart,  1 
Mich.  295;  Danville  v.  Pace,  25  Gratt.  10,  18  Am.  Rep.  669;  Hender- 
son R.  R.  v.  Dickerson,  17  B.  Mon.  177,  66  Am.  Dec.  149. 

86  Watson  v.  Mercer,  8  Pet.  Ill,  8  L.  ed.  876,  affirming  1  Watts 
356;  Thomson  v.  Lee  County,  3  Wall.  331,  18  L.  ed.  177;  Mechanics ' 


♦See,  also,  ante,  p.  264. 

Notes   on   Constitution — 18 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  274 

are  laws  curing  defects  in  titles  to  land;87  validating  defective 
acknowledgments;88  validating  a  married  woman's  power  of  at- 
torney and  sales  made  thereunder  ;89  validating  void  or  voidable 
contracts;90  validating  marriages  otherwise  illegal  or  void  for 
some  minor  defect;91  curing  defects  or  invalidity  of  bond  is- 
sues resulting  from  irregularities  or  want  of  power;92  validat- 
ing judgments  rendered  in  excess  of  court's  jurisdiction.'3 

etc.  Bank  v.  Union  Bank,  22  Wall.  298,  22  L.  ed.  871;  Ritchie  v. 
Franklin  County,  22  Wall.  75,  22  L.  ed.  825;  McFaddin  v.  Evans- 
fenider-Buel  Co.,  185  U.  S.  513,  22  S.  Ct.  758,  46  L.  ed.  1012;  Bandall 
v.  Kreiger,  23  Wall.  146,  23  L.  ed.  124;  Owen  v.  Peebles,  42  Ala. 
343;  Elliott  v.  Pearce,  20  Ark.  515;  Sumner  v.  Mitchell,  29  Fla.  203, 
30  Am.  St.  Rep.  113,  10  South.  567,  14  L.  R.  A.  815;  McMillen  v. 
County  Judge,  6  Iowa,  394;  Smith  v.  Callaghan,  66  Iowa,  555,  24 
N.  W.  51;  Chesnut  v.  Shanes,  16  Ohio,  610,  47  Am.  Dec.  396;  Will- 
iams v.  Milwaukee  etc.  Assn.,  79  Wis.  531,  48  N.  W.  667. 

87  Watson  v.  Mercer,  8  Pet.  110,  8  L.  ed.  876,  affirming  1  Watts, 
356;  Wilkinson  v.  Leland,  2  Pet.  660,  7  L.  ed.  542;  Kearney  v.  Tay- 
lor, 15  How.  517,  14  L.  ed.  787;  Webb  v.  Den,  17  How.  578,  15  L. 
ed.  35;  Randall  v.  Kreiger,  23  Wall.  146,  150,  23  L.  ed.  124;  Williams 
v.  Paine,  169  U.  S.  79,  18  S.  Ct.  288,  42  L.  ed.  658;  McFaddin  v. 
Evans-Snider-Buel  Co.,  185  U.  S.  513,  22  S.  Ct.  758,  46  L.  ed.  1012; 
Atwater  v.  Seely,  1  McCrary,  268,  2  Fed.  137;  Smith  v.  Callaghan, 
66  Iowa,  555,  24  N.  W.  51;  Mitchell  v.  Campbell,  19  Or.  306,  24  Pac. 
457;  Lane  v.  Nelson,  75  Pa.  St.  410. 

88  Carpenter  v.  Dexter,  8  Wall.  525,  19  L.  ed.  426;  Elliott  v. 
Pearce,  20  Ark.  515;  Green  v.  Abraham,  43  Ark.  424;  Johnson  v. 
Richardson,  44  Ark.  373. 

89  Randall  v.  Kreiger,  23  Wall.  147,  23  L.  ed.  124,  affirming  2  Dill. 
448,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,554;   Dentzel  v.  Waldie,  30  Cal.  144. 

90  Ewell  v.  Daggs,  108  U.  S.  151,  2  S.  Ct.  414,  27  L.  ed.  682;  Gross 
v.  United  States  Mortgage  Co.,  108  U.  S.  488,  9  S.  Ct.  947,  27  L.  ed. 
795;  Mutual  Ins.  Co.  v.  Winne,  20  Mont.  40,  49  Pac.  452;  Gray  v. 
Monongahela  Nav.  Co.,  2  Watts  &  S.  160,  37  Am.  Dec.  502;  Danville  v. 
Pace,  25  Gratt.  12,  18  Am.  Rep.  670. 

91  Callahan  v.  Callahan,  36  S.  C.  464,  15  S.  E.  730;  Goshen  v. 
Stonington,  4  Conn.  209,  10  Am.  Dec.  128;  Boston  v.  Cummins,  16 
Ga.  107,  60  Am.  Dec.  720. 

92  Thomson  v.  Lee  County,  3  Wall.  331,  18  L.  ed.  177;  Beloit  v. 
Morgan,  7  Wall.  624,  19  L.  ed.  205;  Ritchie  v.  Franklin  County,  22 
Wall.  75,  22  L.  ed.  825;  Anderson  v.  Santa  Anna,  116  U.  S.  361,  6 
S.  Ct.  413,  29  L.  ed.  633;  Bolles  v.  Brimfield,  120  U.  S.  763,  7  S. 
Ct.  736,  30  L.  ed.  786;  St.  Joseph  Township  v.  Eogers,  16  Wall.  663: 
McMillen   v.   County  Judge,   6   Iowa,   394;   Schenck  v.   Jeffereonville, 


275  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

It  is  within  the  power  of  the  legislature  also  to  validate  er- 
roneous assessments;94  to  authorize  a  tax  auditor  to  go  back  for 
a  certain  period  and  correct  false  returns;95  to  provide  for  the 
taxation  of  lands  which  have  improperly  escaped  taxation;96 
to  change  the  method  of  taxing  corporations;97  to  provide  that 
taxes  already  delinquent  shall  bear  interest  from  the  date  de- 
linquency commenced;98  to  validate  an  illegal  tax  after  suit 
brought  to  recover  same.99  But  legislative  ratification  cannot 
cure  undisclosed  fraud,100  nor  can  it  validate  a  tax  sale  void 
for  want  of  notice.101 

Laws  changing  rules  of  procedure  applicable  to  the  trial  of 
pre-existing  cases  do  not  violate  this  provision;  a  party  must 
submit  to  having  his  cause  tried  according  to  the  rules  in  force 
at  the  time  of  the  trial,102  unless  the  change  affects  the  rights 
of  a  party  to  his  disadvantage.103  Accordingly  a  person  has 
no  vested  right  to  a  defense  based  upon  an  informality  not  af- 
fecting his  substantial  equities,104  but  a  law  providing  that  in 

152  Ind.  217,  52  N.  E.  216;  Cutler  v.  Board  of  Supervisor,  56  Miss. 
122;  People  v.  Mitchell,  35  N.  Y.  552;  Williams  v.  Duanesburgh,  66 
N.  Y.  137;  Supervisors  v.  Randolph,  89  Va.  622,  16  S.  E.  724. 

93  Mechanics'  etc.  Bank  v.  Union  Bank,  22  Wall.  298,  22  L.  ed. 
871. 

94  Mattingly  v.  Dist.  of  Columbia,  97  U.  S.  691,  24  L.  ed.  1098; 
Williams  v.  Supervisors,  122  TJ.  S.  1'64,  7  S.  Ct.  1246,  30  L.  ed.  1088. 

95  Sturges  v.  Carter,  114  TJ.  S.  516,  5  S.  Ct.  1014,  29  L.  ed.  240. 

96  Winona  etc.  Land  Co.  v.  Minnesota,  159  U.  S.  52*,  16  S.  Ct.  83, 
40  L.  ed.  247;  New  Orleans  v.  New  Orleans  etc.  R.  R.,  35  La.  Ann. 
682. 

97  Piqua  Branch  of  State  Bank  v.  Knoop,  16  How.  408,  14  L.  ed. 
977. 

»8  League  v.  Texas,  184  TJ.  S.  161,  22  S.  Ct.  475,  46  L.  ed.  478. 
99  Grim  v.  Wiessenberg  etc.  Dist.,  57  Pa.  St.  435,  98  Am.  Dec.  239. 
ioo  Santa  Ana  Water  Co.  v.  San  Buenaventura,  65  Fed.  328. 

101  Forster  v.  Forster,  129  Mass.  566. 

102  Willard  v.  Harvey,  24  N.  H.  344;  Eich  v.  Flanders,  39  N.  H. 
313. 

103  Simpson  v.  City  Savings  Bank,  56  N.  H.  469,  22  Am.  Rep. 
493. 

104  Danforth  v.  Groton  Water  Co.,  178  Mass.  472,  86  Am.  St.  Rep. 
495,  59  N.  E.  1033. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  276 

all  suits  pending  on  contracts  made  before  a  certain  date  the 
plaintiff  must  show  the  due  payment  of  all  taxes  cannot  retro- 
act.105 

A  law  requiring  the  payment  of  an  equitable  claim  not  legally 
due  does  not  violate  any  constitutional  provision,106  nor  does  a 
statute  passed  after  a  judgment  in  favor  of  a  bank  allowing  a 
setoff  against  it  of  the  bank's  notes  procured  subsequently.107 

A  judicial  decision  enjoining  the  ringing  of  mill  bells  at  cer- 
tain hours  gives  no  vested  right  which  cannot  be  impaired  by 
a  statute  authorizing  the  ringing  at  such  hours.108 

States'  Power  of  Taxation. 

The  provisions  of  this  clause  are  a  limitation  upon  the  tax- 
ing power  of  a  state  as  well  as  upon  any  other  litigation;  the 
manner  of  impairment  is  immaterial,109  and  that  power  is  al- 
ways subject  to  the  qualification  that  it  must  not  be  exercised  so 
as  to  impair  contract  obligations.1 10  An  act  imposing  conditions 
upon  the  holders  of  county  warrants  or  requiring  the  acceptance 
of  a  lower  rate  of  interest  thereon  is  void  as  impairing  their  obli- 
gation.111 Such  would  be  the  effect  of  a  statute  authorizing 
that  a  tax  imposed  upon  city  stock  be  retained  by  the  city 
treasurer  out  of  the  interest  on  the  stock.112  A  statute  requir- 
ing the  tax  upon  state  bonds  to  be  deducted  from  the  coupons 
originally  attached  to  them  when  tendered  in  payment  of  debts 
due  the  state  is  void  as  to  coupons  already  separated  from  bonds 
held  by  a  different  person.113     The  taxation  of  city  bonds  not 

105  Walker  v.  Whitehead,  16  Wall.   316,  21   L.  ed.  357. 
loc  New  Orleans  v.  Clark,  95  U.  S.  654,  24  L.  ed.  521. 

107  Blount  v.  Windley,  95  U.  S.  180,  24  L.  ed.  424. 

108  Sawyer  v.  Davis,  136  Mass.  239,  49  Am.  Kep.  27. 

109  Murray  v.  Charleston,  96  U.  S.  443,  24  L.  ed.  760;  Jenkins  v. 
Charleston,  96  U.  S.  449,  24  L.  ed.  764;  Ladd  v.  Portland,  32  Or. 
271,  67  Am.  St.  Rep.  526,  51  Pac.  654. 

no  Broadfoot  v.  Fayetteville,  124  N.  C.  478,  70  Am.  St.  Rep.  613, 
32  S.  E.  804. 

in  Brewer  v.  Otoe  County,  1  Neb.  373;  McCracken  v.  Moody,  S3 
Ark.  81. 

U2  Murray  v.  Charleston,  96  U.  S.  443,  24  L.  ed.  760. 

lis  Hartman  v.  Greenhow,  102  U.  S.  672,  26  L.  ed.  27L 


277  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

liable  to  taxation  impairs  them;114  but  there  is  no  prohibition 
against  the  taxation  by  a  state  of  bonds  issued  by  itself  for  bor- 
rowed money.115  A  statute  authorizing  the  imposition  of  a 
tax  according  to  a  previous  assessment  is  not  unconstitu- 
tional.116 

A  tax  upon  a  new  subject,  or  an  increased  tax  upon  an  old 
one,  does  not  impair  the  obligation  of  any  contract.1 17  A  bond 
received  as  security  for  the  purchase  of  property  may  be  taxed 
to  any  extent  required  by  the  state  government,118  and  a  stat- 
ute imposing  a  tax  upon  mortgages  is  applicable  to  prior  mort- 
gages.119 So  also  a  constitutional  provision  making  the  mort- 
gagee primarily  liable  for  taxes  assessed  against  the  property 
does  not  impair  the  obligation  of  a  prior  mortgage  containing  no 
stipulation  for  payment  of  taxes  by  the  mortgagor;120  but 
where  a  mortgage  contains  an  agreement  on  the  part  of  the 
mortgagor  to  pay  all  taxes  his  obligation  to  do  so  cannot  be 
impaired  by  a  later  statute.121  A  statute  authorizing  the  mort- 
gagor to  pay  the  tax  in  case  of  the  mortgagee's  default  and  to 
(I cduet  the  amount  from  the  principal,  is  unobjectionable  as  ap- 
plied to  an  existing  mortgage;122  so  also  as  to  a  law  authoriz- 

H4  Antoni  v.  Greenhow,  107  U.  S.  780,  7  S.  Ct.  91,  27  L.  ed.  -463; 
De  Vignier  v.  New  Orleans,  16  Fed.  11;  Mayor  of  Macon  v.  Jones, 
67  Ga.  492;  State  v.  Board  of  Assessors,  35  La.  Ann.  373. 

115  Murray  v.  Charleston,  96  U.  S.  447,  24  L.  ed.  760;  Champaign 
County  Bank  v.  Smith,  7  Ohio  St.  42;  People  v.  Home  Ins.  Co.,  29 
Cal.  533. 

lie  Locke  v.  New  Orleans,  4  Wall.  173,  18  L.  ed.  334;  Frellson  v. 
Mahan,  21  La.  Ann.  104. 

H7  North  Missouri  R.  R.  v.  Maguire,  20  Wall.  46,  affirming  40 
Mo.  490,  8  Am.  Rep.  141. 

H8  Weston  v.  Charleston,  2  Pet.  467,  Harp.  340,  7  L.  ed.  481. 

119  Dundee  Mtg.  Trust  Inv.  Co.  v.  Parrish,  24  Fed.  107;  McCoppin 
v.  McCartney,  60  Cal.  367;  Mumford  v.  Sewall,  11  Or.  67,  4  Pae. 
585;  Cook  v.  Smith,  30  N.  J.  387. 

120  Hay  v.  Hill,  65  Cal.  383,  4  Pac.  378;  Hsmill  v.  Littner,  7  Pac. 
707. 

121  Beckman  v.  Skaggs,  59  Cal.  544. 

122  Common  Council  of  Detroit  v.  Board  of  Assessors,  91  Mich. 
78,  51  N.  W.  787. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  278 

ing  a  borrower  to  deduct  the  amount  of  a  tax  on  a  loan  from 
the  interest.123 

A  tax  upon  the  annual  rent  reserved  in  a  lease  does  not 
impair  the  obligation  of  an  existing  lease.124  The  repeal  of  a 
law  providing  a  judgment  tax  is  invalid  as  to  prior  judg- 
ments.125 A  statute  providing  that  drainage  assessments  shall 
constitute  a  lien  upon  the  land  assessed  does  not  violate  the  ob- 
ligation of  the  contract  by  which  an  owner  holds  his  land,126 
nor  does  a  statute  authorizing  sales  for  delinquent  taxes  al- 
though such  statute  applies  to  taxes  delinquent  before  it  was 
passed.127 

A  state  cannot  pass  a  law  taxing  a  corporation  if  it  would 
thereby  impair  the  obligation  of  any  contract.128  So  where  the 
charter  of  a  corporation  provides  for  the  payment  of  a  certain 
amount  per  annum  upon  each  share  of  its  stock  in  lieu  of  all 
other  taxes,  an  additional  tax  upon  shares  in  the  hands  of 
stockholders  is  void,129  and  a  law  requiring  corporations  to  re- 
tain, for  the  payment  of  taxes,  a  certain  portion  of  the  inter- 
est due  on  bonds  held  by  nonresidents  impairs  the  obligation  of 
the  contract  expressed  in  the  bonds;130  but  a  different  rule  has 
been  laid  down  when  the  holders  are  residents.131     A  law  pro- 

123  Maltby  v.  Beading  etc.  E.  E.,  52  Pa.  St.  140. 

124  Livingston  v.  Hollenbeck,  4  Barb.  9;  Loring  v.  State,  16  Ohio, 
590. 

125  United  States  v.  Lincoln  County,  5  Dill.  184,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
15,503;  United  States  v.  Jefferson  County,  5  Dill.  310,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
15,472;  Sawyer  v.  Concordia,  12  Fed.  754;  State  v.  Police  Jury,  34 
La.  Ann.  95;  Stat©  v.  New  Orleans,  34  La.  Ann.  1149. 

126  Wabash  etc.  Ey.  v.  Commissioners,  134  111.  384,  25  N.  E.  781. 
10  L.   E.   A.   285. 

127  Haskell  v.  City  of  Burlington,  30  Iowa,  232. 

128  Washington  University  v.  Eouse,  8  Wall.  439,  19  L.  ed.  498; 
Home  of  the  Friendless,  v.  Eouse,  8  Wall.  430,  19  L.  ed.  495. 

129  Farrington  v.  Tennessee,  95  U.  S.  688,  24  L.  ed.  558;  Ten- 
nessee v.  Whitworth,  117  U.  S.  136,  6  S.  Ct.  647,  29  L.  ed.  833;  but 
see  Sandusky  City  Bank  v.  Wilbor,  7  Ohio  St.  481. 

130  State  Tax  on  Foreign-held  Bonds,  15  Wall.  300,  21  L.  ed.  179. 
But  see  Ammidown  v.  Freeland,  101  Mass.  303,  3  Am.  Eep.  359. 

131  Commonwealth  v.  New  York  etc.  By.,  150  Pa.  St.  234,  24  Atl. 
609;  Commonwealth  v.  Delaware  etc.  Canal  Co.,  150  Pa.  St.  245,  24 
Atl.  599. 


279  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

viding  that  where  a  railway  is  operated  under  a  lease  the  tax 
shall  be  paid  by  the  lessee  and  deducted  from  the  rent  is  not 
void  as  impairing  the  obligation  of  the  lease.132  The  state  may 
impose  a  tax  upon  its  corporations  as  an  entity  as  well  as  upon 
the  corporation  stock,  its  capital,  or  its  separate  corporation 
property,  and  this  may  be  proportioned  to  the  income  or  to 
the  value  of  the  property,133  or  it  may  repeal  an  existing  rate 
and  impose  another  and  higher  rate.133* 

The  penalty  fixed  at  the  time  of  a  delinquent  tax  sale  cannot 
be  altered  by  a  subsequent  statute  so  as  to  prejudice  the  rights 
of  a  purchaser.134  So  also  where  a  statute  provides  for  the 
return,  with  interest,  of  all  money  paid  by  a  purchaser  at  a 
tax  sale,  if  by  reason  of  irregularity  the  sale  cannot  be  consum- 
mated, a  contract  is  created  with  the  purchaser  which  cannot  be 
impaired  by  a  statute  making  such  return  dependent  upon  the 
order  of  the  supervisors.135  The  sale  of  lands  for  delinquent 
taxes  is  a  contract  with  the  purchaser  that  he  shall  be  entitled 
to  have  the  sale  completed  and  a  deed  issued  according  to  the 
provisions  of  existing  law,  and  the  repeal  of  a  provision  em- 
powering the  auditor  to  issue  deeds  is  objectionable  as  impair- 
ing its  obligation.136  Where,  however,  a  statute  merely  pre- 
scribes the  time  within  which  deeds  must  be  made  after  sale, 
it  is  not  void  as  to  sales  made  before  its  passage,137  and  the 
same  is  true  of  a  statute  requiring  the  holders  of  tax  certificates 
to  give  notice  to  owners  or  occupants  of  lands  before  they  can 
obtain  deeds.138 

A  statute  of  limitation  prescribing  the  time  within  which  the 
holder  of  a  tax  deed  must  sue  to  recover  possession  of  the  land 

132  Vermont  etc.  Ey.  Co.  v.  Vermont  Cent.  By.  Co.,  63  Vt.  1,  21 
Atl.  262,  10  L.  E.  A.  562. 

133  Delaware  E.  E.  Tax,  18  Wall.  232,  21  L.  ed.  888. 

133a  Sandusky  City  Bank  v.  Wilbor,  7  Ohio  St.  481;  St.  Joseph 
v.  Hannibal  etc.  E.  E.,  39  Mo.  276. 

134  State  v.  Capaeller,  6  Ohio  Dec.  702. 

135  Corbin  v.   Washington   County  Commrs.,   3  Fed.   356. 

136  Bruce  v.  Schuyler,  4  Gilm.  221,  46  Am.  Dec.  447. 

137  Tuttle  v.  Block,  104  Cal.  443,  38  Pac.  109. 

138  Coulter  v.  Stafford,  56  Fed.  564.  But  see  Gage  v.  Stewart,  127 
111.  207,  11  Am.  St.  Eep.  116,  19  X.  E.  702. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1  Obligation  of  Contracts.       280 

conveyed  applies  to  purchasers  at  sales  before  its  passage,130  and 
it  is  competent  for  the  legislature  to  prescribe  the  form  of  tax 
deeds  to  be  given  on  previous  sales,  where  no  attempt  is  made 
to  give  a  less  effect  to  such  deeds  than  that  given  by  the  law  in 
force  when  the  sale  was  made.140  A  statute  merely  authorizing 
purchasers  to  surrender  land  purchased  and  recover  the  price 
paid  over  and  above  the  amount  of  taxes  for  which  the  sale  was 
made  and  costs  of  the  sale,  does  not  impair  any  contract  ob- 
ligation.141 A  purchaser  under  a  statute  which  makes  his  deed 
conclusive  evidence  of  the  regularity  of  the  proceedings  anterior 
to  the  sale  acquires  a  contractual  right  which  cannot  be  im- 
paired by  a  law  providing  that  such  deeds  shall  be  prima  facie 
evidence  only  of  regularity.142  The  courts  favor  the  right  to 
redeem  land  sold  for  taxes,143  but  the  legislature  has  no  power 
to  pass  a  law  extending  the  time  of  redemption  from  tax  sales 
previously  made,  notwithstanding  the  right  has  not  yet  been 
barred.144  On  the  other  hand,  a  statute  prescribing  require- 
ments to  secure  the  right  of  redemption  and  providing  for  notice 
to  the  party  in  possession  does  not  impair  the  obligation  of  the 
contract  made  at  the  sale,145  nor  does  a  statute  authorizing  re- 
demption at  any  time  before  the  deed  executed  upon  such  sale 
is  recorded.146 

State. 

The  prohibition  is  against  legislation  by  a  "state,"  but  this 
extends  to  municipal  ordinances  having  the  force  of  law  within 

139  Barrett  v.  Holmes,  102  U.  S.  656,  26  L.  ed.  291;  Jones  v.  Handle, 
68  Ala.  264. 

140  Lain  v.  Shepardson,  IS  Wis.  59. 

141  Smith  v.  Merchand,  7  Serg.  &  E.  260,  10  Am.  Dee.  465. 

142  Tracy  v.  Eeed,  38  Fed.  69;  Marx  v.  Hanthorn,  30  Fed.  679; 
Strode  v.  Washer,  17  Or.  50,  16  Pae.  926;  Smith  v.  Cleveland,  17 
Wis.  556. 

143  Barrett  v.  Holmes,  102  U.  S.  657,  26  L.  ed.  291. 

144  Hull  v.  State,  29  Fla.  79,  30  Am.  St.  Rep.  95,  11  South.  97,  16 
L.  R.  A.  308;  Dikeman  v.  Dikeman,  11  Paige,  484;  State  v.  Fylpaa,  3 
S.  Dak.  586,  54  N.  W.  599;  Robinson  v.  Howe,  13  Wis.  341. 

145  Curtis  v.  Whitney,   13  Wall.  68,  20  L.  ed.   513. 

146  International  Ins.  Co.  v.  Scales,  27  Wis.  640. 


281  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

the  municipality,147  but  in  order  to  become  a  law  of  the  state 
such  an  ordinance  must  be  passed  under  the  supposed  authority 
of  a  legislative  act/48  and  must  involve  the  exercise  of  legisla- 
tive power.149 

A  state  in  rebellion  had  no  more  power  to  do  an  act  prohibited 
by  the  constitution  than  before  the  rebellion  or  after  its  restora- 
tion to  its  normal  place  in  the  Union,  and  so  could  not  pass 
laws  impairing  the  obligation  of  contracts;150  nor  could  it 
adopt  provisions  having  that  effect  in  its  constitution  prepara- 
tory to  the  restoration  of  its  former  relations.151  All  acts  of 
such  states,  however,  not  in  conflict  with  the  constitution  and 
laws  of  the  United  States  were  valid.152  So  a  mortgage  was  not 
invalid  because  the  loan  was  in  Confederate  states  bonds;153 
such  consideration  was  unlawful  only  when  used  in  aid  of  the 
Rebellion,154  and  their  voluntary  acceptance  extinguished  the 
debt.155     The  payment  of  Confederate  bonds  to  an  executor  was 

147  St.  Paul  Gaslight  Co.  v.  St.  Paul,  181  U.  S.  148,  21  S.  Ct. 
575,  45  L.  ed.  788;  Iron  Mountain  Ey.  v.  Memphis,  96  Fed.  126,  67 
Ga.  493. 

148  Murray  v.  Charleston,  96  TJ.  S.  440,  24  L.  ed.  760;  Hamilton 
Gaslight  Co.  v.  Hamilton  City,  146  U.  S.  266,  13  S.  Ct.  90,  36  L. 
ed.  963. 

149  New  Orleans  Waterworks  v.  Louisiana  Sugar  Co.,  125  U.  3. 
31,  8  S.  Ct.  748,  31  L.  ed.  607. 

150  White  v.  Hart,  13  Wall.  652,  20  L.  ed.  685;  Gunn  v.  Barry,  15 
Wall.  610,  21  L.  ed.  212;  Horn  v.  Lockhart,  17  Wall.  581,  21  L.  ed.  657; 
Williams  v.  Bruffy,  96  U.  S.  176,  24  L.  ed.  416;  Houston  v.  Deloach, 
43  Ala.  364,  94  Am.  Dee.  689;  Powell  v.  Boon,  43  Ala.  469;  Oliver 
v.  Memphis  etc.  E.  E.,  30  ATk.  131. 

151  Gunn  v.  Barry,  15  Wall.  610,  21  L.  ed.  212;  White  v.  Hart. 
13  Wall.  652,  20  L.  ed.  685;  In  re  Kennedy,  2  Eich.,  N.  S.,  116; 
Calhoun  v.  Calhoun,  2  Eich.,  N.  S.,  283;  Homestead  Cases,  22  Gratt. 
282,  12  Am.  Eep.  510. 

152  Keith  v.  Clark,  97  U.  S.  462;  Eeynolds  v.  Taylor,  43  Ala.  4£0; 
Bibbes  v.  G.  etc.  E.  E.,  13  S.  C.  242. 

153  Micou  v.   Ashhurst,  55   Ala.   607. 

154  Van  Hoose  v.  Bush,  54  Ala.  342;  Bragg  v.  Tuffts,  49  Ark.  562, 
6  S.  W.  161;  Isaacs  v.  Bichmond,  90  Va.  32,  17  S.  E.  761. 

155  McQueen  v.  McQueen,  55  Ala.  433;  Hester  v.  Watkins,  54 
Ala,  44. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  01.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  282 

valid,156  and  a  guardian  is  entitled  to  credit  for  and  charge- 
able with  the  value  of  such  bonds.157 

Contracts  Protected — In  General. 

A  contract  is  an  agreement  by  which  a  party  undertakes  to 
do  or  not  to  do  a  particular  thing;158  a  transaction  between 
two  or  more  persons  in  which  each  reciprocally  acquires  a  right 
against,  and  comes  under  an  obligation  to,  the  other.159  While 
a  contract  is  ordinarily  said  to  be  a  compact  between  two  or 
more  persons,1150  the  character  of  the  parties  to  it  does  not  af- 
fect the  application  of  this  prohibition.161  For  the  purposes  of 
this  clause  the  term  embraces  agreements  between  states162  be- 
tween states  and  individuals,163  between  states  and  corpora- 
te Blount  v.  Moore,  54  Ala.  360;  Foscue  v.  Lyon,  55  Ala.  441. 

157  Ferguson  v.  Lowery,  54  Ala.  510,  25  Am.  Rep.  718;  Harbin  v. 
Bell,  54  Ala.  389. 

158  Sturges  v.  Crowninshield,  4  Wheat.  197,  4  L.  ed.  529;  Ogden  v. 
Saunders,  12  Wheat.  317,  6  L.  ed.  606;  Green  v.  Biddle,  8  Wheat.  92, 

5  L.  ed.  547;  Edwards  v.  Kearzey,  96  U.  S.  600,  24  L.  ed.  793;  Cin- 
cinnati etc.  By.  v.  McKeen,  64  Fed.  46;  Woodruff  v.  State,  3  Ark. 
285;  Trustees  v.  Rider,  13  Conn.  87;  Robinson  v.  Magee,  9  Cal.  81; 
Depuy  v.  Stewart,  3  Wend.  139,  20  Am.  Dee.  675;  Farnsworth  v. 
Vance,  3  Cold.  108. 

159  Trustees  Dartmouth  College  v.  Woodward.  4  Wheat.  656,  4  L. 
ed.  629. 

160  Fletcher  v.  Peck,  6  Cr.  136,  3  L.  ed.  162. 

161  Trustees  v.  Rider,  13  Conn.  87;  Regents  ▼.  Williams,  9  Gill. 

6  J.  365,  31  Am.  Dec.  72. 

162  Green  v.  Biddle,  8  Wheat.  92,  5  L.  ed.  547;  Achison  v.  Huddle- 
son,  12  How.  298,  13  L.  ed.  993,  7  Gill.  179;  Pennsylvania  v.  Wheel- 
ing etc.  Br.  Co.,  13  How.  560,  14  L.  ed.  249;  Searight  v.  Stokes,  3 
How.  151,  11  L.  ed.  537;  Neil  v.  State,  3  How.  720,  11  L.  ed.  800;  Vo» 
Hoffman  v.  Quincy,  4  Wall.  550,  18  L.  ed.  403;  Spooner  v.  MeConneil, 
1  McLean,  337,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,245;  Allen  v.  McKean,  1  Sum.  276, 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  229;  Cox  v.  State,  3  Blackf.  193;  Canal  Co.  v.  Railroai 
Co..  4  Gill    &  J.  1;  Hogg  v.  Canal  Co.,  5  Ohio.  410. 

163  Providence  Bank  v.  Billings,  4  Pet.  560,  7  L.  ed.  939;  Piqua 
Branch  Bank  v.  Knoop,  16  How.  389,  14  L.  ed.  977;  Murray  v.  Charles- 
ton, 96  U.  S.  445,  24  L.  ed.  760;  Hartman  v.  Greenhow,  102  TJ.  S. 
679,  26  L.  ed.  271;  Hall  v.  Wisconsin,  103  TJ.  S.  8,  26  L.  ed.  302;  Wolff 
v.  New  Orleans,  103  TJ.  S.  367,  26  L.  ed.  395;  Poindexter  v.  Green- 
how,  114  TJ.  S.  286,  5  S.  Ct.  912,  29  L.  ed.  185;  New  Orleans  Gas  Co. 
v.  Louisiana  Light  Co.,  115  TJ.  S.  673,  6  S.  Ct.  264,  29  L.  ed.  516; 


283        Obligation  of  Contracts.  Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

lions,164  between  a  state  and  the  United  States.165  Corpora- 
tions are  within  the  protection  of  the  clause  to  the  same  extent 
as  individuals.166  Mere  social  compacts  between  a  state  and  its 
citizens  are  not  comprehended  by  the  prohibition  ;167  it  protects 
contracts  relating  to  rights  which  are  not  governmental.168 

The  prohibition  against  impairing  contract  obligations  in- 
cludes and  protects  obligations  or  legalities  whereby  one  party 
binds  himself  or  becomes  bound  to  pay  a  sum  of  money,  or  to 
perform  or  omit  to  perform  a  certain  act,169  contracts  which  re- 
spect property  or  some  object  of  value,  and  which  confer  rights 
that  may  be  asserted  in  a  court  of  justice.170  It  is  not  necessary 
that  a  contract  be  executory;  the  clause  includes  executed  con- 

Sala  v.  New  Orleans,  2  Woods,  194,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,246;  State  v. 
County  Court,  19  Ark.  367. 

164  Trustees  of  Dartmouth  College  v.  WoodwaTd,  4  Wheat.  627,  4  L. 
ed.  629;  West  River  Bridge  Co.  v.  Dix,  6  How.  531,  12  L.  ed.  535; 
Bridge  Proprietors  v.  Hoboken  Co.,  1  Wall.  146,  17  L.  ed.  571;  Miller 
v.  State,  15  Wall.  488,  21  L.  ed.  98;  The  Delaware  R.  R.  Tax,  IS  Wall. 
225,  21  L.  ed.  888;  Chicago  etc.  R.  R.  v.  Iowa,  94  U.  S.  161,  24  L. 
ed.  94;  Railway  v.  Philadelphia,  101  U.  S.  540,  25  L.  ed.  912;  Stone 
v.  Mississippi,  101  U.  S.  816,  25  L.  ed.  1079. 

165  McGee  v.  Mathis,  4  Wall.  155,  18  L.  ed.  314;  Trustees  v.  St. 
John's  R.  R.  16  Fla.  542;  Roberts  v.  Missouri  etc.  R.  R.,  43  Kan. 
108,  22  Pac.  1008;  Koenig  v.  Omaha  etc.  R.  R.,  3  Neb.  382;  Lowry 
v.  Francis,  2  Yerg.  534. 

166  Fletcher  v.  Peck,  6  Cr.  136,  3  L.  ed.  162;  State  v.  Wilson,  7 
Cr.  164,  3  L.  ed.  303,  2  N.  J.  300;  Terrett  v.  Taylor,  9  Cr.  43,  3  L.  ed. 
650;  Town  of  Pawlet  v.  Clark,  9  Cr.  292,  3  L.  ed.  735;  Green  v. 
Biddle,  8  Wheat,  92,  5  L.  ed.  547;  Astrom  v.  Hammond,  3  McLean, 
107,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  596;  Derby  Turnpike  Co.  v.  Parks,  10  Conn.  52; 
Trustees  v.  Rider,  13  Conn.  87;  Stanmire  v.  Taylor,  3  Jones  (N.  C), 
207. 

167  Billings  v.  Hall,  7  Cal.  1;  State  v.  Paul,  5  R.  I.  185. 

168  Stone  v.  Mississippi,  101  U.  S.  820,  25  L.  ed.  1079;  Sprayberry 
v.  Atlanta,  87  Ga.  125,  13  S.  E.  199. 

169  Woodruff  v.  State,  3  Ark.  285. 

170  Fletcher  v.  Peck,  6  Cr.  136,  137,  3  L.  ed.  162;  Green  v.  Biddle, 
8  Wheat.  92,  5  L.  ed.  547;  Trustees  Dartmouth  College  v.  Woodwar  ■., 
4  Wheat.  656,  4  L.  ed.  629;  Butler  v.  Pennsylvania,  10  How.  402,  13 
L.  ed.  472;  Trustees  v.  Rider,  13  Conn.  87;  Regents  v.  Williams,  9 
Gill  &  J.  365,  31  Am.  Dec.  72;  Swan  v.  Buck,  40  Miss.  268;  Herrick  v. 
Randolph,  13  Vt.  530. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1  Obligation  of  Contracts.       284 

tracts  as  well.171  Nor  need  the  contract  be  express;  implied 
contracts  are  protected;172  whether  the  contract  relates  to  real 
or  personal  estate,  is  executed  or  executory,  by  parol  or  under 
seal,  the  constitution  preserves  it  inviolate  as  to  its  obliga- 
tions,173 and  if  a  contract,  which  contemplates  the  lapse  of  sev- 
eral years  before  the  performance  of  all  its  conditions,  is  valid 
when  made,  it  remains  so  notwithstanding  changes  in  the  law.174 
The  term  "contract"  presupposes  a  valid  contract,  one  impos- 
ing obligations  under  general  principles  of  law  and  not  void 
under  the  constitution  and  laws  of  a  state,  or  entered  into 
without  authority  of  the  party  sought  to  be  charged.175  A  con- 
tract to  be  protected  from  impairment  must  be  founded  upon 
good  consideration,176  and  a  contract  cannot  exist  without  the 
consent  or  agreement  of  the  parties  to  it,  express  or  implied.177 
Accordingly,  before  the  supreme  court  can  determine  whether 
a  state  law  is  repugnant  to  the  obligation  clause  it  must  ap- 

171  Fletcher  v.  Peck,  6  Cr.  137,  3  L.  ed.  162;  Von  Hoffman  v. 
Quincy,  4  Wall.  549,  18  L.  ed.  403;  Farrington  v.  Tennessee,  95  U. 
S.  683,  24  L.  ed.  558;  Coast  Line  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Mayor,  30  Fed.  649; 
State  v.  Illinois  Cent.  E.  E.,  33  Fed.  774;  St.  Louis  v.  Western  Union 
Tel.  Co.,  63  Fed.  46;  Stein  v.  Mobile,  49  Ala.  368,  20  Am.  Eep.  285; 
Mobile  v.  Bailroad  Co.,  84  Ala.  120,  5  Am.  St.  Eep.  346,  4  South.  108; 
Myers  v.  English,  9  Cal.  349;  Chanley  v.  Bailey,  37  Ga.  536;  State 
v.  Mayor  etc.  of  Jersey  City,  31  N.  J.  L.  581,  86  Am.  Dec.  244; 
Adams  v.  Eeed,  11  Utah,  502,  40  Pac.  724. 

172  Fletcher  v.  Peek,  6  Cr.  137,  3  L.  ed.  162;  Trustees  Dartmouth 
College  v.  Wood-ward,  4  Wheat.  682,  4  L.  ed.  629;  Fisk  v.  Jefferson 
Police  Jury,  116  U.  S.  134,  6  S.  Ct.  329,  29  L.  ed.  587;  Woodruff  v. 
State,  3  Ark.  285;  St.  Louis  etc.  Ey.  v.  Alexander,  49  Ark.  194,  4  S. 
W.  755;  Myrick  v.  Battle,  5  Fla.  345;  Leavitt  v.  Lovering,  64  N.  II. 
609,  15  Atl.  415,  1  L.  E.  A.  58;  Danforth  v.  Eobinson,  80  Me.  472,  6 
Am.  St.  Eep.  228,  15  Atl.  29. 

173  Farrington  v.  Tennessee,  95  U.  S.  683,  684,  24  L.  ed.  558;  Trus- 
tees v.  Eider,  13  Conn.  87;  Taylor  v.  Stearns,  18  Gratt.  244. 

174  McMurray  v.  Sidwell,  155  Ind.  560,  80  Am.  St.  Eep.  255,  58 
N.  E.  722. 

175  New  Orleans  v.  New  Orleans  Water  Works  Co.,  142  U.  S.  88, 
12  S.  Ct.  142,  35  L.  ed.  943;  People  v.  Eoper,  35  N.  Y.  629. 

176  Pearsall  v.  Great  Northern  Ey.,  161  U.  S.  667,  16  S.  Ot.  705, 
40  L.  ed.  838. 

177  Mexican  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Musette,  86  Tex.  715,  26  S.  W.  1077. 


285  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

pear  that  a  legal  contract  is  involved,178  and  for  this  purpose 
the  bare  averment  of  a  contract  is  insufficient.179  The  mere 
fact  that  a  statute  impairs  the  obligation  of  contracts  gives  the 
courts  no  power  to  annul  it ;  the  question  must  be  presented  in 
a  suit  for  the  enforcement  of  a  contract  affected  by  the  stat- 
ute.180 The  ultra  vires  contract  of  a  corporation  is  not  within 
the  protection  of  this  clause.181  A  state  constitution  is  not  a 
contract  within  the  meaning  of  that  term  as  here  used.182 

A  judgment  is  not  itself  a  contract  in  the  sense  in  which 
that  word  is  used  in  the  constitution,183  whether  it  be  based 
upon  contract184  or  tort.185  The  term  "contract"  signifies  an 
agreement  of  the  minds,  for  mutual  consideration,  to  do  or  not 
to  do  certain  acts,186  and  a  judgment  cannot  be  said  to  possess 

178  New  Orleans  v.  New  Orleans  Waterworks  Co.,  142  U.  S.  88, 
12  S.  Ct.  142,  35  L.  ed.  943;  Douglass  v.  Kentucky,  168  U.  S.  500,  18 
S.  Ct.  199,  42  L.  ed.  553. 

179  City  Ey.  v.  Citizens'  E.  E.,  166  U.  S.  564,  17  S.  Ct.  655,  41  L. 
ed.  1114. 

iso  State  v.  Burke,  33  La.  Ann.  498. 

isi  New  Orleans  v.  New  Orleans  Waterworks  Co.,  142  U.  S.  89, 
12  S.  Ct.  142,  35  L.  ed.  943. 

182  Church  v.  Kelsey,  121  IT.  S.  283,  7  S.  Ct.  897,  30  L.  ed.  960. 

183  Morley  v.  Lake  Shore  etc.  Ey.,  146  U.  S.  162,  13  S.  Ct.  54,  36 
L.  ed.  925;  Wyman  v.  Mitchell,  1  Cow.  316;  McCann  v.  New  York 
Cent,  etc.  R.  R.,  50  N.  Y.  176;  Keith  v.  Estill,  9  Port.  669;  Eae  v. 
Hulbert,  17  111.  572;  Smith  v.  Harrison,  33  Ala.  706;  Larrabee  /. 
Baldwin,  35  Cal.  156;  O'Brien  v.  Young,  95  N.  Y.  428,  47  Am.  Eep. 
64;  Livingston  v.  Livingston,  173  N.  Y.  377,  93  Am.  St.  Eep.  600, 
6^  N.  E.  123;  Wyoming  Nat.  Bank  v.  Brown.  7  Wyo.  494,  53  Pac. 
291,  75  Am.  St.  Eep.  935. 

184  Morley  v.  Lake  Shore  etc.  Ey.,  146  U.  S.  162,  13  S.  Ct.  54, 
36  L.  ed.  925;  State  v.  New  Orleans,  38  La.  Ann.  119,  58  Am.  Eep. 
168;  Wyoming  Nat.  Bank  v.  Brown,  7  Wyo.  494,  75  Am.  St.  Eep.  935, 
53  Pac.  291.  But  see  Louisiana  v.  Police  Jury,  111  U.  S.  721,  4  S. 
Ct.  648,  28  L.  ed.  574,  dictum;  Sawyer  v.  Vilas,  19  Vt.  47. 

185  Freeland  v.  Williams,  131  U.  S.  416,  9  S.  Ct.  763,  33  L.  ed.  193; 
Winona  etc.  E,  E.  v.  Plainview,  143  TJ.  S.  393,  12  S.  Ct.  530,  36  L. 
ed.  191;  McAfEee  v.  Covington,  71  Ga.  272,  51  Am.  Eep.  263;  Parker 
v.  Savage,  6  Lea,  406;  Louisiana  v.  New  Orleans,  32  La.  Ann.  709; 
Peerce  v.  Kitzmiller,  19  W.  Va.  564;  White  v.  Shanklin,  19  W.  Va. 
583;  Dash  v.  Van  Kleeck,  7  Johns.  477,  5  Am.  Dec.  291;  Amy  v. 
Smith,  1  Litt.  326;  Thayer  v.  Seavey,  11  Me.  284. 

is6  Louisiana  v.  Mayor  of  New  Orleans,  109  U.  S.  288,  3  S.  Ct. 
211,  27  L.  ed.  936. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  286 

any  of  these  essentials.187  So  where  the  law  at  the  time  a 
judgment  is  rendered  prescribes  a  rate  of  interest  which  judg- 
ments shall  bear,  a  law  changing  the  rate  is  not  void  as  applied 
to  that  judgment.188  A  judgment  for  the  repayment  of  money 
paid  by  mistake  for  taxes  is  upon  the  same  footing,  and  a  judg- 
ment creditor  cannot  insist  upon  the  maintenance  of  the  rate 
of  taxation  in  force  when  his  judgment  was  rendered,  until  it 
is  paid.189  The  repeal  of  a  law  giving  a  judgment  creditor  a 
lien  has  been  held  not  to  be  in  conflict  with  the  prohibition;190 
but  on  the  theory  that  the  law  giving  a  lien  on  the  debtor's 
property  to  satisfy  a  judgment  forms  part  of  the  contract,  the 
contrary  has  been  held  in  other  cases.191  A  statute  requiring 
the  recordation  of  abstracts  of  judgment  applies  to  judgments 
rendered  before  its  passage.192 

Marriage  contracts  are  not  within  the  prohibition  and  the 
legislature  is  not  forbidden  to  pass  laws  regulating  or  annulling 
the  marriage  relation,193  and  may  make  that  cause  for  divorce 

187  Morley  v.  Lake  Shore  etc.  By.,  146  U.  S.  169,  13  S.  Ct.  54, 
36  L.  ed.  925. 

188  Morley  v.  Lake  Shore  etc.  By.,  146  U.  S.  169,  13  S.  Ct.  54,  36 
L.  ed.  925;  Wyoming  Nat.  Bank  v.  Brown,  7  Wyo.  494,  75  Am.  St. 
Bep.  935,  53  Pac.  291. 

189  State  v.  New  Orleans,  38  La.  Ann.  119,  58  Am.  Bep.  168. 

190  Bank  v.  Longworth,  1  McLean,  35,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  923;  Iver- 
son  v.  Shorter,  9  Ala.  713;  Beck  v.  Burnett,  22  Ala.  822;  Daily  v. 
Burke,  28  Ala.  328;  Curry  v.  Landers,  35  Ala.  280;  Moore  v.  Holland, 
16  S.  C.  24;  McCormick  v.  Alexander,  2  Ohio,  285. 

191  Murphy  v.  Gaskins,  28  Gratt.  207;  Batcliffe  v.  Anderson,  31 
Gratt.  105,  31  Am.  Bep.  716;  Gilman  v.  Tucker,  128  N.  Y.  190,  2ft 
Am.  St.  Bep.  464,  28  N.  E.  1040,  13  L.  B.  A.  304;  Merchants'  Ban* 
v.  Ballou,  98  Va.  112,  81  Am.  St.  Bep.  715,  32  S.  E.  481,  44  L.  E.  A. 
306. 

192  Tarpey  v.  Hamer,  17  Miss.  310. 

193  Maynard  v.  Hill,  125  U.  S.  214,  8  S.  Ct.  723,  30  L.  ed.  654; 
Hunt  v.  Hunt,  131  TJ.  S.  clxv;  Starr  v.  Hamilton,  Deady,  268,  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  13,314;  Ex  parte  Kinney,  3  Hughes,  9,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7825; 
White  v.  White,  5  Barb.  474;  Fultz  v.  Fox,  9  B.  Mon.  499;  Kelly  v. 
McCarthy,  3  Bradf.  7;  Noel  v.  Ewing,  9  Ind.  37;  Jones'  Appeal,  57 
Pa.  St.  369;  State  v.  Duket,  90  Wis.  277,  48  Am.  St.  Bep.  931,  63  N. 
W.  85,  31  L.  B.  A.  515. 


287  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

which  was  not  prescribed  at  the  time  a  marriage  was  con- 
tracted.194 

A  law  repealing  an  act  creating  an  office,  removing  the  incum- 
bent, and  changing  the  rate  of  compensation  does  not  impair 
the  obligation  of  any  contract.195  Where,  however,  services 
have  been  rendered  by  an  officer  under  a  law  fixing  compensa- 
tion, an  implied  contract  to  pay  at  that  rate  arises,  which  is 
impaired  by  a  change  in  the  constitution  diminishing  the  tax- 
ing power  and  preventing  the  collection  of  the  compensation 
due.196 

A  state  cannot  prevent  its  citizens  from  making  any  con- 
tracts they  please  outside  of  the  state;197  nor  can  state  laws 
operate  upon  the  contracts  of  its  citizens  beyond  the  limits  of 
the  state.198  An  obligation  derived  from  the  laws  of  one  state 
cannot  be  impaired  by  the  laws  of  another,  but  one  state  need 
not  give  the  same  legal  obligation  to  a  contract  as  would  the 
state  where  it  was  made.199  So  while  the  lex  loci  contractus, 
generally  speaking,  governs  in  determining  the  obligation  of  a 
contract,200  contracts  bonos  mores,  or  against  the  policy  or  laws 

194  Elliott  v.  Elliott,  38  Md.  362;  Jones  v.  Jones,  2  Overt.  2;  Car- 
son v.  Carson,  40  Miss.  349;  Hickman  v.  Hickman,  1  Wash.  257,  22 
Am.  St.  Rep.  148,  24  Pac.  445. 

195  Butler  v.  Pennsylvania,  10  How.  416,  13  L.  ed.  472;  Perkins  v. 
Corbin,  45  Ala.  119,  6  Am.  Rep.  702;  Lane  v.  Kolb,  92  Ala.  641,  9 
South.  874;  Oldham  v.  Birmingham,  102  Ala.  366,  14  South.  795; 
Humphrey  v.  Sadler,  40  Ark.  102;  Standeford  v.  Wingate,  2  Duvall, 
445;  State  v.  Davis,  44  Mo.  131;  Kenney  v.  Hudspeth,  59  N.  J.  L. 
322,  36  Atl.  662;  Jones  v.  Hobbs,  4  Baxt.  120;  State  v.  Pinkerman,  63 
Conn.  196,  28  Atl.  117,  22  L.  R.  A.  653;  Augusta  v.  Sweeney,  44  Ga. 
465,  9  Am.  Rep.  173. 

196  Fisk  v.  Jefferson  Police  Jury,  116  U.  S.  134,  6  S.  Ct.  330,  2d 
L.  ed.  587. 

197  Lamb  v.  Bowser,  7  Biss,  315,  372,  Fed.  Cas.  Nos.  8008,  8009. 

198  Ogden  v.  Saunders,  12  Wheat.  369,  6  L.  ed.  606;  Boyle  v. 
Zacharie,  6  Pet.  348,  8  L.  ed.  423,  6  Pet.  643,  8  L.  ed.  527;  Babcock 
v.  Weston,  1  Gall.  169,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  703;  Agnew  v.  Piatt,  15  Pick. 
420;  Glenn  v.  Clabaugh,  65  Md.  69,  3  Atl.  904;  Larrabee  v.  Talbott, 
5  Gill,  438,  46  Am.  Dec.  642;  Easterly  v.  Goodwin,  35  Conn.  284,  95 
Am.  Dec.  238;  Hawley  v.  Hunt,  27  Iowa,  307,  1  Am.  Rep.  274. 

199  Lapsley  v.  Brashear,  4  Litt.  47. 

200  Robinson  v.  Campbell,  3  Wheat.  219,  4  L.  ed.  372;  Wayman  v. 
Southard,  10  Wheat.  48,  6  L.  ed.  253;  Andrews  v.  Pond,  13  Pet.  78, 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  op  Contracts.  288 

of  a  state,  will  not  be  enforced  in  its  courts  notwithstanding  it 
may  have  been  lawful  in  the  state  where  it  was  entered  into.201 

Contracts  of  States. 

In  its  broadest  sense  "contracts"  includes  agreements  or  com- 
pacts between  the  government  and  its  citizens,202  and  a  contract 
between  a  state  and  an  individual,  as  well  as  between  two  indi- 
viduals, is  fully  protected  by  the  constitution.203  States  enter- 
ing into  contracts  do  so  upon  the  same  footing  as  ordinary  in- 
dividuals, and  they  cannot  invoke  their  sovereign  attributes  to 
justify  an  impairment  of  their  contracts.204  A  state  legislature 
may  contract  with  an  individual,  and  its  enactments  to  that  end 
become  contracts  within  the  prohibition.205 

10  L.  ed.  61;  Bank  of  Augusta  v.  Earle,  13  Pet.  589,  10  L.  ed.  274; 
Pritchard  v.  Norton,  106  U.  S.  137,  1  S.  Ct.  102,  27  L.  ed.  104; 
Mutual  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Cohen,  179  U.  S.  264,  21  S.  Ct.  106,  45  L. 
ed.  181. 

201  Smith  v.  Union  Bank,  5  Pet.  527,  8  L.  ed.  212;  Teal  v.  Walker, 
111  U.  S.  252,  4  S.  Ct.  420,  28  L.  ed.  415;  Herschfeld  v.  Dexel,  12  Ga. 
586;  Varnum  v.  Camp,  13  N.  J.  L.  332,  25  Am.  Dee.  482;  Flagg  v. 
Baldwin,  38  N.  J.  Eq.  224,  48  Am.  Eep.  312. 

202  United  States  v.  Stocksehlager,  129  U.  S.  477,  9  S.  Ct.  384, 
32  L.  ed.  785;  Bruce  v.  Schuyler,  4  Gilm.  278,  46  Am.  Dec.  460; 
Trustees  v.  Eider,  13  Conn.  96;  Winter  v.  Jones,  10  Ga.  196,  54  Am. 
Dec.  382;  Cary  Library  v.  Bliss,  151  Mass.  375,  25  N.  E.  94,  7  L.  R. 
A.  765;  Swan  v.  Buck,  40  Miss.  268. 

203  Providence  Bank  v.  Billings,  4  Pet.  560,  7  L.  ed.  939;  Poin- 
dexter  v.  Greenhow,  114  U.  S.  286,  5  S.  Ct.  912,  29  L.  ed.  185;  New 
Orleans  Gas  Co.  v.  Louisiana  Light  Co.,  115  U.  S.  673,  6  S.  Ct.  264, 
29  L.  ed.  516;  Sala  v.  New  Orleans,  2  Woods,  194,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
12,246;  McCauley  v.  Brooks,  16  Cal.  30. 

204  Piqua  Branch  Bank  v.  Knoop,  16  How.  389,  14  L.  ed.  977;  Mur- 
ray v.  Charleston,  96  U.  S.  445,  24  L.  ed.  760;  Hartman  v.  Greenhow, 
102  U.  S.  679,  26  L.  ed.  271;  Wolff  v.  New  Orleans,  103  U.  S.  367, 
26  L.  ed.  395;  Tennessee  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Moore,  36  Ala.  386;  Eedlon 
v.  Barker,  4  Kan.  387,  96  Am.  Dec.  179;  Eobertson  v.  Land  Commis- 
sioner, 44  Mich.  278,  6  N.  W.  661. 

205  New  Jersey  v.  Yard,  95  U.  S.  114,  24  L.  352;  New  Orleans  Gas 
Co.  v.  Louisiana  Light  Co.,  115  U.  S.  660,  6  S.  Ct.  257,  29  L.  ed.  516; 
People  v.  Hall,  8  Colo.  492,  9  Pac.  37;  Winter  v.  Jones,  10  Ga.  190, 
54  Am.  Dec.  379;  Trustees  v.  Bailey,  10  Fla.  112;  Canal  Co.  v.  Rail- 
road Co.,  4  Gill  &  J.  1. 


289  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

The  rule  that  one  legislature  cannot  bind  its  successors  does 
not  prevent  the  enactment  of  laws  in  the  nature  of  contracts 
which  a  subsequent  legislature  cannot  repeal;206  but  the  de- 
tails of  a  contract  with  the  state  may  be  altered  where  the  al- 
teration does  not  impair  the  obligation.207  A  grant  by  the 
United  States  to  a  state  upon  condition,  and  the  acceptance 
thereof  by  the  state,  constitutes  a  contract  which  cannot  be 
impaired  by  the  legislature.208  u.,, 

(Jcneral  laws  are  not  contracts,  but  only  the  expression  of  the 
legislative  will,  and  laws  which  amend  or  repeal  them  are  not 
within  the  inhibition;209  e.  g.,  general  regulations  for  the  de- 
scent and  distribution  of  property.210  And  a  contract  for  the 
sale  of  a  dam  is  not  impaired  by  a  general  law  requiring  the 
construction  of  fish  ways  over  all  dams.211  iSor  does  the  pro- 
hibition apply  to  legislation  in  matters  of  purely  legislative  con- 

206  Piqua  Branch  Bank  v.  Knoop,  16  How.  389,  14  L.  ed.  977;  Ohio 
Life  Ins.  etc.  Co.  v.  Debolt,  16  How.  416,  14  L.  ed.  997;  Mechanics' 
Bank  v.  Debolt,  18  How.  380,  15  L.  ed.  458;  Jefferson  Bank  v.  Skelley, 
1  Black,  436,  17  L.  ed.  173;  Murray  v.  Charleston,  95  U.  S.  445,  21 
L.  ed.  760;  Hartman  v.  Greenhow,  103  U.  S.  679,  26  L.  ed.  271;  Hall 
v.  Wisconsin,  103  U.  S.  8,  26  L.  ed.  302;  Von  Hoffman  v.  Quincy,  4 
Wall.  554,  18  L.  ed.  403;  Tennessee  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Moore,  36  Ala.  386; 
Winona  etc.  E,  E.  v.  County  of  Deuel,  3  Dak.  Ter.  13,  12  N.  W.  56-i; 
State  of  Georgia  v.  Georgia  etc.  Co.,  54  Ga.  426;  Daughdrill  v.  Lifo 
Ins.  Co.,  31  Ala.  91;  State  v.  County  Court,  19  Ark.  360;  Johnson  v. 
Commonwealth,  7  Dana,  338;  State  v.  Bank,  2  Houst.  99,  73  Am. 
Dec.  699;  Illinois  Cent.  E.  E.  v.  McLean  County,  17  111.  291;  State 
Bank  v.  People,  5  111.  303;  Bank  v.  New  Albany,  11  Ind.  139;  Bank 
v.  Edwards,  5  Ired.  516;  Bank  v.  Deming,  7  Ired.  55;  Carr  v.  State, 
127  Ind.  207,  22  Am.  St.  Eep.  626,  26  N.  E.  779,  11  L.  E.  A.  370; 
Municipality  v.  State  Bank,  5  La.  Ann.  394;  People  v.  Auditor,  7 
Mich.  84;  Camden  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Commissioners,  18  N.  J.  71;  State  v. 
Young,  29  Minn.  530,  9  N.  W.  742;  Matheny  v.  Golden,  5  Ohio  St. 
361;  Canal  Company's  Case,  83  Md.  326,  35  Atl.  365. 

207  Thornton  v.  Hooper,  14  Cal.  9. 

20S  McGee  v.  Mathis,  4  Wall.  155,  18  L.  ed.  314;  Trustees  v.  St. 
Johns  E.  E.,   16  Fla.  542. 

209  Corning  v.  Greene,  23  Barb.  33;  State  v.  Dews,  E.  M.  Charlt. 
397;  People  v.  Eoper,  35  N.  Y.  629. 

210  In  re  Lawrence,  5  N.  Y.  Supp.  310. 

2U  State  v.  Meek,  112  Iowa,  388,  84  Am.  St.  Eep.  342,  84  N.  W. 
3,  51  L.  E.   A  414. 

Notes  on  Constitution— 19 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1  Obligation  op  Contracts.        290 

cern,  or  involving  the  exercise  of  general  political  powers.212 
Of  this  nature  are  laws  creating  public  offices  and  conferring 
powers  upon  municipal  corporations.213 

An  appointment  to  a  public  office  is  not  a  contract,214  and 
the  compensation  of  an  officer  fixed  by  law  may  be  reduced  in 
the  absence  of  prohibition  in  the  state  constitution;215  or  the 
office  may  be  abolished  and  the  incumbent  removed  ;21C  or  ad- 
ditional duties  may  he  attached  to  an  office  without  increasing 
the  compensation.217 

An  officer  of  a  public  corporation  is  a  public  officer  within 

212  Commonwealth  v.  Bird,  12  Mass.  443;  People  v.  Roper,  35  N. 
T.  629;  Esser  v.  Spaulding,  17  Nev.  289. 

213  Butler  v.  Pennsylvania,  10  How.  416,  13  L.  ed.  472. 

214  Butler  v.  Pennsylvania,  10  How.  416,  13  L.  ed.  472;  Barker  v. 
Pittsburgh,  4  Pa.  St.  49;  Commonwealth  v.  Bacon,  6  Serg.  &  R.  322; 
Jones  v.  Shaw,  15  Tex.  577;  Commonwealth  v.  Mann,  5  Watts  &  S. 
418;  Benford  v.  Gibson,  15  Ala.  521;  Coffin  v.  State,  7  Ind.  157; 
Haynes  v.  State,  3  Humph.  480,  39  Am.  Dec.  187;  Swan  v.  Buck,  40 
Miss.  258;  State  v.  Smedes,  26  Miss.  47;  Connor  v.  New  York,  2 
Sand.  355;  State  v.  Dews,  R.  M.  Charlt.  397;  People  v.  Lippincott, 
67  111.  333;  Humphrey  v.  Sadler,  40  Ark.  102;  Standeford  v.  Wingato, 
2  Duvall,  445;  Sargent  v.  Wilder,  71  Me.  383;  Kenny  v.  Hudspeth,  59 
N.  J.  L.  322,  36  Atl.  662;  Jones'  v.  Hobbs,  4  Baxt.  120. 

215  Farwell  v.  Rockland,  62  Me.  300;  Wyandotte  v.  Drennan,  4i'i 
Mich.  480,  9  N.  W.  501;  Knoppen  v.  Supervisors,  46  Mich.  24,  8  N. 
W.  580;  Lloyd  v.  Silver  Bow  County,  11  Mont.  411,  28  Pac.  454; 
Douglas  County  v.  Timme,  32  Neb.  275,  49  N.  W.  267;  Marden  v. 
Portsmouth,  59  N.  H.  20;  Warner  v.  People,  2  Denio,  272,  43  Am. 
Dec.  740;  McCormick  v.  Fayette  County,  150  Pa.  St.  193,  24  Atl.  668, 
McFall  v.  Austin,  1  Tex.  App.  Civ.  207;  Loving  v.  Auditor,  76  Va. 
947;  Holladay  v.  Auditor,  77  Va.  430;  State  v.  Kalb,  50  Wis.  183,  6 
N.  W.  588;  Bedford  v.  Gibson,  15  Ala.  521;  People  v.  Auditor,  2  111. 
537;  Barker  v.  Pittsburgh,  4  Pa.  St.  49;  Connor  v.  New  York,  2  Sand. 
Ch.  355;  Knoop  v.  Piqua  Branch  Bank,  1  Ohio  St.  616;  Toledo  Rank 
v.  Bond,  1  Ohio  St.  655;  Kilgore  v.  Magee,  85  Pa.  St.  401. 

216  Trustees  Dartmouth  College  v.  Woodward,  4  Wheat.  694,  4 
L.  ed.  629;  Butler  v.  Pennsylvania,  10  How.  416,  13  L.  ed.  472;  State 
v.  Dews,  R.  M.  Charlt.  414;  People  v.  Loeffler,  175  111.  609,  51  N.  E. 
793;  Demarest  v.  Mayor,  74  N.  Y.  166;  People  v.  Pickney,  32  N.  Y. 
395;  Coyle  v.  Mclntyre,  7  Houst.  44,  40  Am.  St.  Rep.  114,  30  Atl. 
730;  Donohue  v.  County  of  Will,  100  111.  106. 

217  Turpen  v.  Commissioners,  7  Ind.  172,  Prairie  v.  Worth,  78  N. 
C.  173. 


291        Obligation  of  Contracts.  Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

this  rule.218  So  a  professor  in  a  state  university  elected  for  a 
specified  term  "subject  to  law"  may  be  removed  by  subsequent 
action  of  the  legislature  before  the  expiration  of  his  term.219 
To  bring  contracts  with  a  state  within  the  prohibition,  consid- 
eration is  essential.220  Accordingly  the  legislature  may  repeal 
an  act  which,  when  passed,  was  a  mere  gratuity  if  no  vested 
rights  have  been  acquired  under  or  by  virtue  of  it.221  A  stat- 
ute providing  for  compensation  for  property  destroyed  to  check 
fire  is  in  the  nature  of  a  gratuity,  and  may  be  repealed,222  and 
a  statute  offering  a  bounty  is  not  a  contract  except  as  to  those 
who  earn  the  bounty  while  the  statute  is  in  force.223  Xor  is 
a  statute  granting  an  annuity  for  services  already  rendered,  and 
as  to  which  the  state  has  no  further  obligation,  a  contract;224 
but  where  a  statute  provides  for  an  annuity  to  be  paid  to  a 
college  corporation  about  to  be  organized,  in  order  to  encourage 
subscriptions,  a  contract  arises  between  the  state  and  the  cor- 
poration which  cannot  be  impaired  by  subsequent  legislation  ;225 
so  also  where  a  state  offers  assistance  to  a  commercial  corpora- 
tion upon  consideration  of  a  contribution  of  a  certain  amount  on 
each  share  of  stock,  the  acceptance  by  the  stockholders  and  the 
contribution  of  the  sum  specified  creates  a  contract  within  the 
prohibition.226 

Legislative  Grants. 


A  legislative  grant,  although  in  the  form  of  a  statute,  is  a 

218  Augusta  v.  Sweeny,  44  Ga.  463,  9  Am.  Eep.  172;  Iowa  City  v. 
Foster,  10  Iowa,  189;  Commonwealth  v.  Bacon,  6  Serg.  &  B.  322. 

219  Head  v.  University,  19  Wall.  531,  22  L.  ed.  160;  Gillan  v.  Board 
of  Eegents,  88  Wis.  13,  58  N.  W.  1044,  24  L.  E.  A.  336. 

220  Ohio  Trust  Co.  v.  Debolt,  16  How.  416,  14  L.  ed.  997. 

221  Memphis  v.  United  States,  97  U.  S.  297,  24  L.  ed.  920;  Hess 
v.  Muir,  65  Md.  605,  6  Atl.  676. 

222  Bowddich  v.  Boston,  101  U.  S.  19,  25  L.  ed.  9S0. 

223  Salt  Co.  v.  East  Saginaw,  13  Wall.  377,  20  li.  ed.  611;  Shiner 
v.  Jacobs,  62  Iowa,  394,  17  N.  W.  613;  Commissioners  v.  Hudson,  20 
Kan.  75;  Cushman  v.  Hale,  68  Vt.  452,  35  Atl.  385. 

224  Dale  v.  State,  3  Stew.  387. 

225  St.  John's  College  v.  State,  15  Md.  330. 

826  Consolidated  Assn.  of  Planters  v.  Lord,  35  La.  Ann.  425. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  292 

contract  within  this  clause,227  whether  made  directly,  or  indi- 
rectly through  a  municipal  corporation,228  and  a  statute  re- 
pealing a  prior  grant  is  void.229  The  prohibition  extends  to  ah. 
legislation  whereby  the  estate  granted  will  be  in  anywise  im- 
paired.230 

An  executed  grant  is  impaired  by  a  law  operating  to  devest 
any  right  or  estate  vested  under  it,2:!1  and  any  attempt  to  de- 
stroy such  vested  rights  is  unconstitutional  and  void;232  e.  g., 
in  act  attempting  to  take  property  from  the  grantee  and  confer 
it  upon  another,233  or  an  act  annulling  former  grants  and  de- 
claring that  the  grantors  shall  stand  seised  of  their  former 
estates.234     A  subsequent  statute  imposing  conditions  not  con- 

227  Fletcher  v.  Peck,  6  Or.  137,  3  L.  ed.  162;  Terrett  v.  Taylor, 
1  Cr.  50,  3  L.  ed.  650;  Pawlet  v.  Clark,  9  Cr.  332,  3  L.  ed.  735; 
Trustees  Dartmouth  College  v.  Woodward,  4  Wheat.  656,  682,  4  L. 
ed.  629;  Pennoyer  v.  McConnaughy,  140  U.  S.  25,  11  S.  Ct.  699,  35 
L.  ed.  363;  Walla  Walla  v.  Walla  Walla  Water  Co.,  172  U.  S.  9,  19 
S.  Ct.  77,  43  L.  ed.  341;  Charles  River  Bridge  v.  Warren  Bridge,  11 
Pet.  420,  9  L.  ed.  773;  Grogan  v.  City  of  San  Francisco,  18  Cal. 
590;  Bruce  v.  Schuyler,  4  Gilm.  221,  46  Am.  Dec.  447;  United  States 
v.  Minnesota  etc.  By.,  1  Minn.  127;  Iron  City  Bank  v.  Pittsburgh, 
37  Pa.  St.  340;  Montgomery  v.  Kasson,  16'  Cal.  194;  Savannah  v. 
Steamboat  Co.,  Charlt.  (Ga.)  346;  Winter  v.  Jones,  10  Ga.  196,  54 
Am.  Dec.  382;  Edwards  v.  Jagers,  19  Ind.  417;  Yarmouth  v.  North 
Yarmouth,  34  Me.  418,  56  Am.  Dec.  670;  Grammar  School  v.  Bailey, 
62  Vt.  478,  20  Atl.  823. 

2?8  Baltimore  Trust  etc.  Co.  v.  City  of  Baltimore,  64  Fed.  153. 

220  Fletcher  v.  Peek,  6  Cr.  137,  3  L.  ed.  162;  Rice  v.  Railroad  Co.. 
1  Black,  358,  17  L.  ed.  147;  Gaines  v.  Buford,  1  Dana,  481;  People 
v.  Piatt,  17  Johns.  195,  8  Am.  Dec.  362;  Crenshaw  v.  State  River  Co., 
6  Rand.  245. 

230  Fletcher  v.  Peck,  6  Cr.  137,  3  L.  ed.  162;  People  v.  Piatt,  17 
Johns.  195,  8  Am.  Dec.  362. 

231  Philadelphia  etc.  R.  R.  v.  Bowers,  4  Houst.  506. 

232  United  States  v.  Louisville  etc.  Canal  Co.,  4  Dill.  €11,  1  Flip. 
260,  Fed.  Cas.  No.   15,633. 

233  Davis  v.  Gray,  16  Wall.  203,  21  L.  ed.  447;  Commissioners 
v.  Lucas,  93  U.  S.  114,  23  L.  ed.  822;  Stanmire  v.  Taylor,  3  Jones  (N. 
C),  207. 

234  Fletcher  v.  Peck,  6  Cr.  137,  3  L.  ed.  162;  Terrett  v.  Taylor, 
9  Cr.  50,  3  L.  ed.  650;  Montgomery  v.  Kasson,  16  Cal.  189;  Grogan 
v.  City  of  San  Francisco,  18  Cal.  590;  Berrett  v.  Oliver,  7  Gill  '& 
J.  191. 


293  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

tained  in  the  original  grant  impairs  the  obligation  of  the  grant 
and  is  void,235  and  the  legislature  cannot  by  subsequent  act, 
provide  a  different  mode  of  perpetuating  a  trust  in  lands 
granted.23'3 

All  acts  impairing  the  rights  of  a  grantee  vested  under  a 
patent  from  the  state  are  unconstitutional  and  void,237  but  an 
act  appointing  commissioners  to  investigate  titles  to  land  held 
under  state  patents  and  determine  their  validity  does  not  im- 
pair any  contract  obligation.238  On  the  other  hand,  the  legis- 
lature cannot  rescind  a  grant  of  land,  which  has  passed  into  in- 
ocent  hands,  on  the  ground  that  the  original  patent  was  pro- 
cured by  fraud.239  Property  purchased  by  an  alien  under  a 
special  act  cannot  be  devested  and  transferred  to  another  by 
legislative  action;240  and  it  would  seem  that  the  legislature 
,'annot  vacate  or  set  aside,  on  account  of  invalidity,  patents 
granted  prior  to  the  Eevolution.241  An  act  granting  land  to 
a  railroad  company  constitutes  a  contract  between  the  state  and 
the  company  acting  under  it,242  and  an  act  reappropriating  the 
same  land  to  any  other  purpose  is  void  as  impairing  the  obli- 
gation of  the  contract.243  The  compact  of  1789  between  Vir- 
ginia and  Kentucky  constituted  a  contract,  and  any  act  of 
either  state  impairing  titles  protected  by  that  compact  violates 
its  obligation  and  is  void;  e.  g.,  a  law  restricting  the  rights  of 
a  claimant  as  against  an  occupant.244 

235  Gaines  v.  Buford,  1  Dana,  481;  Drew  v.  New  YoTk  etc.  Ey., 
81  Pa.  St.  46;  Herrick  v.  Eandolph,  13  Vt.  525. 

236  Fletcher  v.  Rutland  etc.  B.  E.,  39  Vt.  535. 

237  Fletcher  v.  Peck,  6  Cr.  137,  3  L.  ed.  162;  People  v.  Piatt,  17 
Johns.  195,  8  Am.  Dee.  362. 

238  Jackson  v.  Lamphire,  3  Pet.  289,  7  L.  ed.  679. 

239  Fletcher  v.  Peck,  6  Cr.  137,  3  L.  ed.  162. 

240  Bonaparte  v.  Camden  etc.  Co.,  Baldw.  205,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1617. 

241  People   v.   Clarke,  9  N.  Y.   349. 

242  Davis  v.  Gray,  16  Wall.  232,  21  L.  ed.  447;  Pearsall  v.  Great 
Northern  Ey.,  161  U.  S.  662,  16  S.  Ct.  708,  40  L.  ed.  838;  Preston 
v.  Walsh,  10  Fed.  325,  328;  Houston  etc.  Ey.  v.  Texas  etc.  By.,  70 
Tex.  657,  8  S.  W.  500. 

243  Koenig  v.  Omaha  etc.  Ey.,   3  Neb.  373. 

244  Green  v.  Biddle,  8  Wheat.  108,  5  L.  ed.  547. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1  Obligation  of  Contracts.       294 

A  grant  of  the  right  to  purchase  state  lands  is  a  contract 
protected  from  impairment  by  subsequent  act,245  and  if  a  party 
by  payment  of  the  purchase  money  becomes  entitled  to  a  con- 
veyance from  the  state,  the  legislature  cannot  by  subsequent 
act  deprive  him  of  that  right,246  and  where  other  conditions 
have  been  complied  with,  the  privilege  of  paying  for  the  land 
and  having  a  patent  issued  cannot  be  taken  away.247  So,  also, 
a  certificate  of  purchase  of  swamp  and  overflowed  lands,  which 
binds  the  state  to  issue  a  patent  to  the  purchaser  or  to  the  last 
assignee  of  the  certificate,  without  any  restriction  as  to  the 
character  of  the  assignee,  cannot  be  impaired  by  a  constitutional 
provision  forbidding  grants  to  any  but  citizens  and  actual 
settlers.248  The  holder  of  a  certificate  may  be  required  to  es- 
tablish the  genuineness  of  his  certificate  in  order  to  entitle  him 
to  survey  and  patent ;  e.  g.,  a  requirement  that  the  certificate  be 
presented  to  commissioners  for  approval  within  a  certain 
time  ;249  but  the  conditions  as  to  the  time  of  making  part  pay- 
ments cannot  be  changed  so  as  to  shorten  the  time  and  defeat 
rights  acquired.250  Where,  however,  the  contract  is  wholly  ex- 
ecutory it  creates  no  obligation  which  is  impaired  by  subsequent 
legislation,251  and  an  act  repealing  a  statute  which  confirmed 
certain  titles  upon  the  compliance  of  specified  conditions  prece- 
dent is  not  invalid  where  the  conditions  have  not  been  complied 
with.252  A  statute  allowing  a  bona  fide  occupant  of  land 
claimed  by  another  under  grant  from  the  state  does  not  impair 
the  obligation  of  the  contract  between  the  state  and  its  pur- 
chaser.253 

245  United  States  v.  Great  Falls  Mfg.   Co.,  21  Md.   119. 

246  Winter  v.  Jones,  10  Ga.  190,  54  Am.  Dec.  379;  Fogg  v.  Will- 
iams, 2  Head,  474. 

247  Damman  v.  Commissioners,  4  Wis.  414;  Montgomery  v.  Kaa- 
son,  10  Cal.  189. 

248  McCabe   v.   Goodwin,   106    Cal.   486,   39   Pac.   941. 

249  League  v.  De  Young,  11  How.  202,  13  L.  ed.  657;  Hamilton  v. 
Avery,  20  Tex.  634;  Peck  v.  Moody,  23  Tex.  95;  Durrett  v.  Crosby, 
28  Tex.  695. 

230  Pennoyer  v.  McConnaughy,  140  U.  S.  1,  11  S.  Ct.  669,  35  L. 
ed.   363. 

251  Trustees  v.  Rider,  13  Conn.  87;  Swan  v.  Buck,  40  Miss.  2-68. 

252  Van  Home  v.   Dorrance,  2   Dall.  304,  Fed  Cas.  No.   16,857. 
233  Albee   v.  May,  2  Paine,   74,  Fed.  Cas.  No.   134;   Armstrong  v. 


295  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

Grants  of  land  including  water  rights  are  within  the  pro- 
hibition; and  where  land  was  granted  on  both  sides  of  a  non- 
navigable  stream  with  no  restriction  as  to  the  use  of  the  stream, 
a  subsequent  statute  requiring  the  grantee  to  change  his  dams 
was  declared  to  be  void;254  and  where  a  dam  was  erected  under 
an  act  of  the  legislature  authorizing  the  reclamation  of  wet 
lands,  a  subsequent  act  requiring  the  removal  of  the  dam  is 
void.255  The  grant  to  a  purchaser  of  water  lots  of  the  right  to 
construct  a  wharf,  or  to  extend  his  lots  to  prescribed  limits,  can- 
not be  revoked  by  the  state;256  but  the  grant  of  a  privilege  to 
erect  a  wharf  is  not  impaired  by  another  grant  to  a  county  to 
erect  a  wharf  in  close  proximity  to  it,  although  the  value  of  the 
privilege  is  thereby  diminished.257  lSTor  does  the  grant  of  water 
lots  give  to  the  owners  of  such  lots  any  absolute  right  in  clam 
or  oyster  fisheries  within  their  limits,  free  from  legislative 
regulation  for  the  preservation  of  the  common  property  in  such 
shell  fish.258  The  provision  in  the  California  statute  of  1851 
as  to  the  boundary  of  water  lots  in  San  Francisco  harbor  created 
no  contract  between  the  state  and  the  grantees  under  that  act.259 
A  statute  providing  for  the  reclamation  of  swamp  lands  and  for 
an  assessment  upon  the  owners  proportionate  to  the  benefits  ac- 
cruing, impairs  no  contract  contained  in  United  States  or  Mexi- 
can land  grants;260  nor  does  the  grant  of  a  portion  of  sub- 
merged lands  preclude  the  improvement  of  the  remainder  by 
the  state.261 

Jackson,  1  Blackf.  210,  12  Am.  Dee.  225;  Scott  v.  Mather,  14  Tex. 
236;  Saunders  v.  Wilson,  19  Tex.  196.  But  see  Bristoe  v.  Evans,  2 
Overt.  341;  Nelson  v.  Allen,  1  Yerg.  360. 

254  People  v.  Piatt,  17  Johns.  195,  8  Am.  Dec.  362;  State  v.  Glenu, 
7  Jones  (N.  C),  321;  Cornelius  v.  Glenn,  7  Jones  (N.  C),  512.  But 
see  State  v.  Meek,  112  Iowa,  3S8,  84  Am.  St.  Rep.  342,  84  N.  W.  3, 
51  L.  R.  A.  414. 

255  Glover  v.  Powell,  10  N.  J.  Eq.  211. 

256  Baltimore  &  Ohio  E.  R.  v.  Chase,  43  Md.  23. 

257  Lansing  v.  Smith,  4  Wend.  9,  21  Am.  Dec.  89. 

258  Commonwealth  v.  Bailey,  13  Allen,  541. 

259  Floyd  v.  Blanding,  54  Cal.  41. 

260  Hagar  v.  Reclamation  Dist.  No.  108,  111  U.  S.  701,  4  S.  Ct. 
663,  28  L.  ed.  569,  affirming  6  Saw.  567,  4  Fed.  366;  S.  C,  66  CaL 
54,  4  Pac.  945. 

261  Hollister  v.  Union  County,  9  Conn.  436,  25  Am.  Dec.  36:  Lan- 
sing v.  Smith,  8  Cow.  146. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  296 

A  lease  of  school  lands  providing  for  the  reappraisal  of  the 
value  of  the  lands  at  stated  periods,  and  giving  the  Lessee  the 
right  to  select  one  of  the  three  appraisers,  is  a  contract  which 
cannot  he  impaired  by  depriving  the  lessee  of  his  right  of  seleo 
tion.202  The  contract  in  a  lease  of  a  railway,  two-thirds  of 
whose  stock  is  owned  by  the  state,  which  gives  the  Lessee  the 
right  to  change  the  gauge  of  the  road,  is  impaired  by  a  statute 
prohibiting  any  change  of  gauge.263  The  legislature  has  power 
to  authorize  a  corporation  created  by  it  to  borrow  money  by 
mortgaging  its  property  and  franchises  or  by  issuing  preferred 
stock  and  pledging  its  revenues  to  pay  dividends  thereon,264  and 
having  done  so,  the  state  is  estopped  from  impeaching  the  cor- 
poration's action  and  rights  acquired  thereunder  cannot  be  im- 
paired by  legislative  action.265  The  contract  implied  in  a  grant 
of  an  undivided  half  interest  in  escheated  property  is  not  im- 
paired by  the  release  to  another  of  "whatever  interest  in  such 
land  might  rightfully  belong  to  the  state."266  But  where  the 
legislature  has  granted  to  the  state  university  all  escheated  prop- 
erty, it  cannot,  by  subsequent  act,  repeal  the  grant  and  provide 
that  all  such  property  shall  revert  to  the  state.267  A  statute 
providing  for  escheat  proceedings  after  actual  notice  to  known 
claimants  and  constructive  notice  to  unknown  claimants  does 
not  impair  the  obligation  of  any  contract  in  the  grant  under 
which  the  deceased  owner  held.268 

Licenses. 

A  license  granted  by  a  state  or  a  municipal  corporation  is  not 
a  contract  within  the  meaning  of  this  prohibition;  it  is  merely 
the  grant  of  a  privilege  which  may  be  revoked  or  may  have  ad- 
ditional conditions  imposed  upon  its  enjoyment,  unless  otherwise 

262  State  v.  McPeak,  31  Neb.  139,  47  N.  W.  691;  State  v.  Thayer, 
46  Neb.  137,  64  N.  W.   700. 

263  State  v.  Kichmond  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  73  N.   C.  527. 

264  Covington  v.  Covington  etc.  Br.  Co.,  10  Bush   (Ky.),  69. 

265  Mower  v.  Kemp,  42  La.  Ann.  1007,  8  South.  830. 

266  Mulligan   v.  Corbins,   7  Wall.  491,  19  L.  ed.   222. 

267  Den  v.  Foy,  1  Murph.  (N.  C.)    58. 

2«8  Hamilton  v.  Brown,  161  U.  S.  256,  16  S.  Ct.  585,  40  L.  ed.  691. 


297  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

provided  in  the  state  constitution.209  A  license  to  practice  law- 
is  not  a  contract;  accordingly  an  act  declaring  a  forfeiture  of 
the  right  is  not  repugnant  to  this  prohibition;270  and  a  state 
may  require  attorneys  at  law  to  file  affidavits  of  allegiance  in 
order  to  continue  to  practice.271  The  license  to  practice  any 
profession  may  be  modified  in  any  manner  which  the  public  wel- 
fare may  demand,  and  a  tax  on  the  license  is  not  unconstitu- 
tional.272 

The  certificate  issued  to  a  foreign  corporation  authorizing  it 
to  do  business  does  not  constitute  a  contract  which  will  pre- 
clude subsequent  license  taxation  by  a  state.273  A  right  given 
by  statute  to  purchasers  of  railroad  property  and  franchises  at 
foreclosure  sale  to  form  a  new  corporation  with  all  the  rights 
and  privileges  of  the  old  one  upon  complying  with  certain  pre- 
requisites, is  a  mere  regulation  of  law,  and  a  subsequent  act 
imposing  new  conditions  precedent  to  the  obtaining  of  a  charter 
is  unobjectionable.274  An  act  increasing  the  license  fee  to  be 
paid  by  foreign  corporations  then  doing  business,  or  thereafter 
to  be  authorized,  is  likewise  valid.275 

269  Phalen  v.  Virginia,  8  How.  168,  12  L.  ed.  1030,  3  Harr.  441; 
Calder  v.  Kurby,  5  Gray,  597;  Adams  v.  Hackett,  27  N.  H.  289,  59 
Am.  Dee.  376;  Simmons  v.  State,  12  Mo.  268,  49  Am.  Dec.  131;  City 
of  St.  Louis  v.  Sternberg,  69  Mo.  289;  Hirn  v.  Ohio,  1  Ohio  St.  21; 
Metropolitan  Board  of  Excise  v.  Barrie,  7  Tiff.  667;  Bass  v.  Mayor, 
Meigs,  421,  33  Am.  Dec.  154;  Gregory  v.  Shelby,  2  Met.  (Ky.)  589; 
Freligh  v.  State,  8  Mo.  606;  State  v.  Sterling,  8  Mo.  697;  State  v. 
Hawthorn,  9  Mo.  389. 

270  In   re  Baxter,  Fed.   Cas.   No.   1118. 

271  Cohen  v.  Wright,  22  Cal.  293. 

272  First  Municipality  v.  Manuel,  4  La.  Ann.  328;  City  of  New 
Orleans  v.  Turpin,  13  La.  Ann.  56;  State  v.  Fellowes,  12  La.  Ann. 
344;  State  v.  Waples,  12  La.  Ann.  343;  Simmons  v.  State,  12  Mo. 
268,  49  Am.  Dee.  131;  State  v.  Gozlay,  5  Ohio,  14;  Drexel  v.  Com- 
monwealth, 46  Pa.  St.  31. 

273  Home  Ins.  Co.  v.  Augusta,  93  TJ.  S.  122,  123,  23  L.  ed.  825; 
Postal  Tel.  Co.  v.  Charleston,  153  U.  S.  695,  14  S.  Ct.  1095,  38  L.  ed. 
871,   affirming  56  Fed.  421. 

274  People  v.  Cook,  148  TJ.  S.  397,  13  S.  Ct.  645,  37  L.  ed.  49S, 
affirming  110  N.  Y.  443,  18  N.  E.  113. 

275  Aetna  Standard  etc.  Co.  v.  Taylor,  4  Ohio  Dec.  180,  3  Ohij, 
N.  P.   152. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  21)3 

Where  the  privilege  becomes  an  absolute  contract  it  is  within 
the  protection  accorded  by  this  clause,  and  its  obligation  cannot 
be  impaired.276  So  where  a  person  under  a  permit  granted  by 
a  city  council  to  erect  frame  buildings  within  the  fire  limits 
has  made  contracts  and  incurred  liabilities  thereon  before  a  re- 
scission of  the  privilege,  he  has  acquired  a  contractual  right 
which  is  entitled  to  protection,277  and  it  seems  that  the  payment 
of  a  bonus  for  a  privilege  granted  confers  a  right  which  can- 
not be  impaired  by  subsequent  legislation.278 

A  license  to  tolerate  certain  acts  or  authorizing  certain  acts 
cannot  deprive  the  state  of  power  to  revoke  the  privilege  when- 
ever the  public  welfare  demands  the  revocation;  accordingly  a 
license  to  maintain  a  dam  in  a  navigable  river  may  be  modified 
or  revoked  whenever  the  necessities  of  navigation  require.279 
Licenses  to  maintain  slaughter-houses  may  be  revoked  whenever 
the  exercise  of  the  right  under  them  become  a  nuisance.280 
Neither  the  legislature  nor  the  people  themselves  can  bargain 
away  the  right  to  regulate  the  public  health  or  morals,  or  legis- 
lative discretion  concerning  them;  accordingly  the  privilege 
of  conducting  a  lottery  must  be  held  subject  to  the  state's  police 
power.281  Licenses  to  manufacture  and  sell  liquor  are  upon  the 
same  footing,  and  they  may  be  repealed  at  any  time,  notwith- 
standing they  are  granted  in  unqualified  terms.282     The  pre- 

276  State  Lottery  Co.  v.  Fitzpatrick,  3  Woods,  222,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
8541. 

277  City  of  Buffalo  v.  Chadeayne,  134  N.  Y.   163,  31  N.  E.  443. 

278  Wendover  v.  Lexington,   15  B.   Mon.   258. 

279  Rundle  v.  Canal  Co.,  14  How.  89,  14  L.  ed.  335;  State  v.  Beards- 
ley,  108  Iowa,  405,  79  N.  W.  141. 

280  Crescent  City  Co.  v.  New  Orleans,  33  La.  Ann.  934;  Portland 
v.  Meyer,  32  Or.  371,  67  Am.  St.  Eep.  540,  52  Pac.  22. 

281  Stone  v.  Mississippi,  101  U.  S.  819,  25  L.  ed.  1079;  Douglas  v. 
Kentucky,  168  U.  S.  496,  18  S.  Ct.  201,  42  L.  ed.  553. 

282  Boston  Beer  Co.  v.  Massachusetts,  97  U.  S.  32,  33,  24  L.  el. 
989;  Kresser  v.  Lyman,  74  Fed.  767;  Powell  v.  State,  69  Ala.  10; 
Hevren  v.  Reed,  126  Cal.  222,  58  Pac.  537;  La  Croix  v.  County  Com- 
missioners, 49  Conn.  602,  50  Conn.  329,  47  Am.  Rep.  652;  Browu 
v.  State,  82  Ga.  225,  7  S.  E.  916;  McKinney  v.  Salem,  77  Ind.  214; 
Moore  v.  Indianapolis,  120  Ind.  492,  22  N.  E.  427;  Columbus  City  v. 
Cutcomp,  61  Iowa,  672,  17  N.  W.  47;  State  v.  Bott,  31  La.  Ann.  663, 
33  Am.  Rep.  224;  Fell  v.  State,  42  Md.  71,  20  Am.  Rep.  S3;  Metro- 


299  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  1,  §  10,  CI.  1 

payment  of  the  license  tax  does  not  affect  this  power,283  and  be- 
fore the  end  of  the  fiscal  year  the  legislature  may  raise  the  fee 
for  the  unexpired  term.284  Such  a  license  not  being  a  contract, 
a  law  making  a  dealer  in  liquors  liable  for  injury  caused  by  an 
intoxicated  person  is  not  unconstitutional  as  impairing  the  ob- 
ligation of  a  contract.285 

Exemption  from  Taxation.* 


Unless  restrained  by  the  state  constitution  the  legislature  may 
contract  to  exempt  property  from  taxation  so  as  to  bind  its 
successors.286  Such  exemption  is  always  a  question  of  policy, 
never  one  of  power,287  and  a  state  in  granting  it  relinquishes 
no  part  of  its  sovereign  powers.288  But  the  state's  right  to  tax 
can  be  relinquished    only  by  express    stipulation;289    the  in- 

politan  Board  of  Excise  v.  Barrie,  34  N.  Y.  657;  Young  v.  Blaisdell, 
138  Mass.   345. 

283  Beithmiller  v.  People,  44  Mich.   285,  6  N.  W.  669. 

284  Moore  v.  City  of  Indianapolis,  120  Ind.  483,  22  N.  E.  424;  Row- 
land v.  State,  12  Tex.  App.  418. 

285  Moran  v.  Goodman,  130  Mass.  158,  39  Am.  Bep.  443;  Baker 
v.  Pope,  2  Hun,  556;  Franklin  v.  Schormerborn,  8  Hun,  112. 

2SG  New  Jersey  v.  Wilson,  7  Cr.  167,  3  L.  ed.  303;  Ohio  etc.  Trust 
Co.  v.  D&bolt,  16  How.  428,  14  L.  ed.  997;  Bodge  v.  Woolsey,  18  How. 
331,  15  L.  ed.  401;  Wilmington  E.  E.  v.  Eeid,  13  Wall.  267,  20  L.  ed. 
568;  Von  Hoffman  v.  Quincy,  4  Wall.  525,  18  L.  ed.  403;  Jefferson 
Br.  Bank  v.  Skelly,  1  Black,  447,  17  L.  ed.  173;  Tomlinson  v.  Jessup, 
15  Wall.  454,  21  L.  ed.  189;  Tomlinson  v.  Branch,  15  Wall,  468,  21 
L.  ed.  189;  Pacific  E.  E.  v.  Maguire,  20  Wall.  43,  22  L.  ed.  282;  The 
Delaware  E,  E,  Tax,  18  Wall.  225,  21  L.  ed.  888;  Bailey  v.  Maguire, 
22  Wall.  226,  22  L.  ed.  850;  Tucker  v.  Ferguson,  22  Wall.  575,  22 
L.  ed.  805;  Salt  Co.  v.  East  Saginaw,  13  Wall.  376,  20  L.  ed.  611; 
Mobile  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Tennessee,  153  U.  S.  500,  14  S.  Ct.  968,  38  L.  ed. 
793;  Memphis  City  Bank  v.  Tennessee,  161  IT.  S.  190,  16  S.  Ct.  468, 
40  L.  ed.  664. 

287  Piqua  Branch  Bank  v.  Ohio,  16  How.  384,  14  L.  ed.  977. 

2S8  Piqua  Branch  Bank  v.  Ohio,  16  How.  384,  14  L.  ed.  977;  Wells 
v.  Central  Vermont  E.  E.,  14  Blatchf.  430,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,390;  State 
v.  Bank  of  Smyrna,  2  Houst.  116,  73  Am.  Dec.  701. 

289  Providence  Bank  v.  Billings,  4  Pet.  561,  7  L.  ed.  939;  Phila- 
delphia &  Wilmington  E.  E.  v.  Maryland,  10  How.  393,  13  L.  ed.  461; 


♦Exemptions  in  corporate  charters,  see  post,  pp.  347-356. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  300 

tention  to  grant  the  exemption  must  be  clear,290  and  be  indi- 
cated by  unmistakable  words.291  The  power  is  necessary  to 
the  existence  of  a  state  and  all  acts  limiting  it  must  be  strictly 
construed,292  and  the  question  of  legislative  intent  is  always 
open.293 

If  the  exemption  is  a  mere  gratuity,  is  spontaneous,  and  no 
service  or  duty  or  other  condition  is  imposed,  it  may  be  with- 
drawn at  any  time.294  So  a  statute  exempting  the  property  of 
a  manufacturing  corporation   from   taxation   for   a   period  of 

Tomlinson  v.  Branch,  15  Wall.  460,  21  L.  ed.  189;  Tomlinson  v.  Jes- 
sup,  15  Wall.  454,  21  L.  ed.  189;  Charles  River  Bridge  v.  Warren 
Bridge,  11  Pet.  546,  9  L.  ed.  773;  Tucker  v.  Ferguson,  22  Wall.  527, 
22  L.  ed.  805;  West  Wisconsin  R.  R.  v.  Supervisors,  93  U.  S.  598,  23 
L.  ed.  814;  Newton  v.  Commissioners,  100  U.  S.  561,  25  L.  ed.  710; 
Memphis  Gas  Co.  v.  Shelby  County,  109  U.  S.  401,  3  S.  Ct.  2M,  27 
L.  ed.  976;  Pennsylvania  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Miller,  132  U.  S.  84,  10  S.  Ct. 
37,  33  L.  ed.  267. 

290  Gilman  v.  Sheboygan,  2  Black,  513,  17  L.  ed.  305;  Rector  etc. 
v.  Philadelphia  Co.,  24  How.  302,  16  L.  ed.  602;  Railroad  Co.  v. 
Gaines,  97  U.  S.  708,  24  L.  ed.  1091;  Railroad  Co.  v.  Loftin,  98  U.  S. 
564,  25  L.  ed.  222;  Tennessee  v.  Whitworth,  117  U.  S.  145,  6  S.  Ct. 
649,  29  L.  ed.  833;  Yazoo  etc.  Ry.  v.  Adams  180  U.  S.  22,  21  S.  Ct. 
240,  45  L.  ed.  395. 

291  Jefferson  Branch  Bank  v.  Skelly,  1  Black,  447,  17  L.  ed.  173: 
Morgan  v.  Louisiana,  93  U.  S.  222,  23  L.  ed.  860;  Southwestern  R.  R. 
v.  Wright,  116  U.  S.  236,  6  S.  Ct.  375,  29  L.  ed.  626;  Vicksburg  R,  R. 
v.  Dennis,  116  U.  S.  668,  6  S.  Ct.  625,  29  L.  ed.  770;  New  Orleans 
R.  R,  v.  New  Orleans,  143  U.  S.  195,  12  S.  Ct.  406,  36  L.  ed.  121; 
Wilmington  etc.  R.  R.  v.  Alsbrook,  146  TJ.  S.  294,  13  S.  Ct.  72.  3'3 
L.  ed.  972;  Keokuk  etc.  R.  R.  v.  Missouri,  152  U.  S.  306.  14  S.  04. 
592,  38  L.  ed.  450;  Phoenix  Fire  etc.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Tennessee,  161  U. 
S.  178,  16  S.  Ct.  471,  40  L.  ed.  660. 

292  Rector  etc.  v.  Philadelphia  County,  24  How.  302,  16  L.  ed. 
602;  Bank  v.  Tennessee,  104  TJ.  S.  495,  26  L.  ed.  810;  Railway  Co.  v. 
Loftin,  105  U.  S.  261,  26  L.  ed.  1042;  Winona  etc.  Land  Co.  v.  Min- 
nesota,' 159  TJ.  S.  529,  16  S.  Ct.  88,  40  L.  ed.  247. 

29.-?  New  Orleans  v.  Houston,  119  U.  S.  278,  7  S.  Ct.  198,  30  L. 
ed.  411. 

294  Rector  etc.  v.  Philadelphia,  24  How.  300,  16  L.  ed.  602;  Tucker 
v.  Ferguson,  22  Wall.  527,  22  L.  ed.  805;  Brainerd  v.  Colchester,  31 
Conn.  407;  Lord  v.  Litchfield,  36  Conn.  116,  41  Am.  Rep.  41;  West 
Wisconsin  R.  R.  v.  Supervisors,  93  U.  S.  597,  23  L.  ed.  814. 


301  Obligation  of  Conikacts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

years  is  a  mere  bounty  and  repealable.295  The  consideration 
for  the  exemption  must  be  something  as  to  which  there  is  no 
legal  duty,296  and  the  pledge  of  a  grand  lodge  to  give  its  rev- 
enues to  charity  is  insufficient  to  render  the  immunity  irrepeal- 
able  where  the  duty  already  exists.297 

The  benefits  accruing  to  the  community,  however,  may  be  a 
sufficient  consideration,298  and  wherever  there  is  good  consid- 
eration for  the  exemption  there  is  a  contract  which  is  protected 
from  repeal  or  modification.299  If  property  be  given  to  a  so- 
ciety for  certain  purposes,  under  a  statute  exempting  such  gifts 
from  taxation,  the  statute  constitutes  a  contract  with  the 
donors,  and  the  property  must  be  exempt  so  long  as  it  is  used 
for  the  purposes  for  which  it  was  granted.300 

A  provision  in  the  charter  of  an  eleemosynary  corporation 
or  a  university  that  its  property  shall  be  exempt  is  a  contract 
entitled  to  protection;301  but  it  seems  that  a  statute  which  pro- 
vides that  public  grants  for  pious  and  other  uses  shall  be  for- 
ever exempt  from  taxation  has  no  effect  upon  prior  grants,  and 
as  to  them  may  be  repealed  without  impairing  the  obligation 

295  Salt  Co.  v.  East  Saginaw,  13  Wall.  377,  20  L.  ed.  611,  affirming 
19  Mich.  259,  2  Am.  Eep.  82;  Welch  v.  Cook,  97  U.  S.  543,  24  L. 
ed.  1112. 

296  Tucker  v.  Ferguson,  22  Wall.  574,  22  L.  ed.  805;  Bradley  v. 
McAtee,  7  Bush,  673,  3  Am.  Rep.  13. 

297  Grand  Lodge  v.  New  Orleans,  166  U.  S.  149,  17  S.  Ct.  523,  4L 
L.  ed.  951. 

298  Home  of  the  Friendless  v.  Bouse,  8  Wall.  437,  19  L.  ed.  495. 

299  State  v.  Wilson,  7  Cr.  167,  3  L.  ed.  303;  Railway  v.  Phila- 
delphia, 101  U.  S.  532,  25  L.  ed.  912;  Thompson  v.  Holton,  6  McLean, 
386,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,958;  Hewitt  v.  New  York  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  12 
Blatchf.  452,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6443. 

300  Atwater  v.  Woodbridge,  6  Conn.  223;  Osborne  v.  Humphreys, 
7  Conn.  335;  Parker  v.  Redfield,  10  Conn.  490;  Laudon  v.  Litchfield, 
11  Conn.  251;  Seymour  v.  Hartford,  21  Conn.  481;  Herrick  v.  Ran- 
dolph, 13  Vt.  525.  But  see  Lord  v.  Litchfield,  36  Conn.  116,  4  Am. 
Rep.  41.  , 

301  Home  for  the  Friendless  v.  Rouse,  8  Wall.  436,  19  L.  ed.  495: 
Washington  University  v.  Rouse,  8  Wall.  439,  19  L.  ed.  498;  Asylum 
v.  New  Orleans,  105  U.  S.  368,  26  L.  ed.  1128,  affirming  33  La.  Ann. 
856;  President  etc.  of  College  v.  Shaefer,  104  Mo.  267,  16  S.  W. 
396. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  302 

of  any  contract.302  A  statute  providing  that  all  lands  pur- 
chased from  the  United  States  shall  he  exempt  for  a  stipulated 
period  constitutes  a  contract,  and  the  lands  cannot  he  taxed 
until  the  expiration  of  that  time,303  and  where  a  state,  in  order 
to  promote  the  sale  and  reclamation  of  its  swamp  lands,  ex- 
empts them  from  taxation  for  a  certain  number  of  years,  any 
tax  imposed  upon  them  during  that  period  is  void.304  So, 
also,  a  statute  declaring  that  all  lands  purchased  for  the  use 
of  Indians,  in  consideration  of  their  relinquishing  their  claims 
to  other  lands,  should  forever  be  exempt  is  a  contract.305 

The  exemption  of  lands  extends  also  to  the  buildings  erected 
thereon,306  unless  the  interest  in  the  buildings  is  created  en- 
tirely distinct  from  the  interest  in  the  lands,  when  the  build- 
ings may  be  taxed  although  the  lands  are  exempt.307  If  the 
land  be  exempt  it  will  be  exempt  in  the  hands  of  the  lessee,308 
but  where  the  lessee  has  covenanted  to  pay  such  taxes  as  may 
be  assessed  thereon,  he  is  estopped  to  allege  the  unconstitution- 
ality of  a  subsequent  act  imposing  a  tax.309  Where  the  exemp- 
tion from  taxation  is  annexed  to  the  land  it  follows  the  land 
into  the  hands  of  a  purchaser,310  but  where  it  is  a  personal 
privilege  it  will  not  pass  to  a  purchaser  unless  by  clear  statu- 
tory direction.311     The  mere  authorization  of  sale  is  not  of 

302  Herrick  v.  Randolph,  13  Vt.  525. 

303  Thompson  v.  Holton,   6  McLean,  386,  Fed.  Cas.  No.   13,958. 

304  McGee  v.  Mathis,  4  Wall.  143,  18  L.  ed.  314. 

305  New  Jersey  v.  Wilson,  7  Ct.  167,  3  L.  ed.  303. 

306  Osborne   v.   Humphreys,   7   Conn.   335. 

307  Parker   v.   Eedfield,   10   Conn.   490. 

308  Osborne  v.  Humphreys,  7  Conn.  335;  Landon  v.  Litchfield,  11 
Conn.  251;  Hardy  v.  Waltham,  24  Mass.  108;  Matheny  v.  Golden,  5 
Ohio  St.  361;  Kuniler  v.  Traber,  5  Ohio  St.  442. 

309  Hart  v.  Cornwall,  14  Conn.  228. 

3io  State  v.  Wilson,  7  Cr.  164,  3  L.  ed.  303;  Stevens  County  v. 
St.  Paul  etc.  Ry.,  36  Minn.  471,  31  N.  W.  944. 

311  Morgan  v.  Louisiana,  93  TJ.  S.  221,  23  L.  ed.  860;  Railroad 
Co.  v.  County  of  Hamblen,  102  TJ.  S.  275,  26  L.  ed.  152;  Wilson 
v.  Gaines,  103  TJ.  S.  421,  26  L.  ed.  401;  Memphis  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Com- 
missioners, 112  TJ.  S.  623,  5  S.  Ct.  299,  28  L.  ed.  837;  Gulf  etc.  Ry. 
Co.  v.  Hewes,  183  U.  S.  66,  22  S.  Ct.  26,  46  L.  ed.  86. 


303  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

itself  sufficient,312  and  a  subsequent  statute  may  render  it  liable 
where  it  is  conveyed  without  the  reservation  of  an  annual 
rent.313 

Immunity  from  taxation  continues  only  while  property  is 
used  for  purposes  for  which  it  was  given.314  So  a  corpora- 
tion changing  its  business  from  insurance  to  banking  under 
a  general  enabling  statute  does  not  retain  its  exemption.315 
Exemption  from  taxation  may  be  lost  by  lapse  of  time  without 
claiming  it,  as  by  long  acquiescence  in  the  levy  of  a  tax,316 
and  where  the  original  charter  of  a  corporation  exempted  its 
property  from  taxation,  but  twenty-four  years  had  elapsed  be- 
fore organization,  a  constitutional  prohibition  against  exemp- 
tions adopted  in  the  interim  was  held  to  cut  off  the  right.317 

State  Debts  and  Liabilities. 

The  creditor  of  a  state  has  a  contract  right  which  the  legis- 
lature cannot  impair  by  subsequent  enactment,318  and  while  a 
state  may  avoid  the  payment  of  its  obligations  by  failure  or 
refusal  to  make  the  necessary  appropriation,319  it  cannot  by 
affirmative    legislation  annul    or  impair    a  valid    contract  by 

312  Armstrong  v.  Treasurer,  16  Pet.  281,  10  L.  ed.  965. 

313  New  Haven  v.  Sheffield,  30  Conn.  160;  Brainerd  v.  Colchester, 
31  Conn.  407;  Lord  v.  Litchfield,  36  Conn.  116,  4  Am.  Rep.  41. 

314  Home  for  the  Friendless  v.  Rouse,  8  Wall.  436,  19  L.  ed.  495. 

315  Memphis  City  Bank  v.  Tennessee,  161  U.  S.  190,  16  S.  Ct.  468. 
40  L.  ed.  664. 

316  Given  v.  Wright,  117  U.  S.  657,  6  S.  Ct.  907,  29  L.  ed.  1021. 

317  Planters'  Ins.  Co.  v.  Tennessee,  161  U.  S.  197,  16  S.  Ct.  466, 
40  L.  ed.  667. 

318  Trustees  of  Wabash  etc.  Co.  v.  Beers,  2  Black,  452,  17  L.  ed. 
327;  Curran  v.  Arkansas,  15  How.  304,  14  L.  ed.  705;  Louisiana  v. 
Jumel,  107  U.  S.  711,  2  S.  Ct.  128,  27  L.  ed.  448;  Durkee  v.  Board  of 
Liquidation,  103  U.  S.  646,  26  L.  ed.  598;  Chaffraix  v.  Board  of  Liqui- 
dation, 11  Fed.  628;  Ford  v.  Delta  &  Pine  Land  Co.,  43  Fed.  181;  Mc- 
Cauley  v.  Brooks,  16  Cal.  11;  State  v.  Cardozo,  8  Rich.  71,  21  Am. 
Rep.  275. 

319  Carr  v.  State,  127  Ind.  204,  22  Am.  St.  Rep.  624,  26  N.  E. 
778,  11  L.  E.  A.  370;  State  ex  rel.  v.  Porter,  89  Ind.  260. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Orligation  of  Contracts.  301 

which  it  has    incurred  indebtedness,320  and  an    appropriation 
once  made  cannot  be  withdrawn.321 

The  diversion  of  funds  or  property  held  for  the  payment 
of  debts  of  the  state  is  repugnant  to  the  prohibition  against 
impairment,322  and  a  statute  devesting  or  postponing  the  lien 
of  a  bondholder  who  has  loaned  money  upon  the  pledge  of  cer- 
tain property  is  open  to  the  same  objection.323  But  an  act 
forbidding  the  funding  of  doubtful  state  obligations  until  their 
validity  has  been  established  by  the  courts  does  not  impair  any 
contract  obligation.324  The  mere  passage  of  an  act  authoriz- 
ing the  issue  of  bonds  and  providing  for  taxation  of  all  prop- 
erty to  pay  them  gives  to  the  bondholder  no  contract  righi; 
which  is  impaired  by  the  subsequent  passage  of  a  law  restrict- 
ing such  taxation  to  real  property,325  nor  has  he  any  right  to 
insist  upon  the  collection  of  the  tax  in  the  mode  prescribed  by 
law  at  the  time  the  bonds  were  issued.326  Where,  however, 
provision  is  made  for  taxation  to  meet  state  bonds  an  abate- 
ment of  the  tax  which  deprives  a  holder  of  his  remedy  is 
void.327  A  provision  for  taxation  to  pay  a  claim  which  is  not 
enforceable  again'st  the  state,  but  is  founded  solely  in  equity 
and  justice,  gives  no  contract  right,  and  a  repeal  of  the  provi- 
sion is  valid.328 

After  the  payment  of  an  obligation  due  the  state  a  contract 
is  implied    that  payments    shall  neither    be    repudiated    nor 

320  Davis  v.  Gray,  16  Wall.  203,  21  L.  ed.  447;  Hall  v.  Wisconsin, 
103  U.  S.  5,  26  L.  ed.  302. 

321  Durkee  v.  Board  of  Liquidation,  103  U.  S.  646,  26  L.  ed.  598; 
Louisiana  v.  Jumel,  107  U.  S.  711,  2  S.  Ct.  128,  27  L.  ed.  448;  Mc- 
Caailey  v.  Brooks,  16  Cal.  11. 

322  Chaffraix  v.  Board  of  Liquidation,  11  Fed.  638;  State  v.  Car- 
dozo,  8  Rich.  71,  28  Am.  Rep.   275. 

323  Trustees  of  Wabash  etc.  Co.  v.  Beers,  2  Black,  452,  17  L.  ed. 
327;  Ford  v.  Delta  &  Pine  Land  Co.,  43  Fed.  181. 

324  New  York  Guaranty  etc.  Co.  v.  Board  of  Liquidation,  105  TJ. 
S.  624,  26  L.  ed.  1106;  Commonwealth  v.  Jones,  82  Va.  789,  1  S.  E. 
84. 

325  Gilman  v.  Sheboygan,  2  Black,  510,  17  L.  ed.  305. 

326  Gibbs  v.  Green,  54  Miss.  592. 

327  Bunch  v.  Wolverstein,  62  Miss.  56;  Morton  v.  Hoge,  4  Rich.  430. 

328  People  v.  Montgomery,  67  N.  Y.   109. 


305  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

denied,  and  a  statute  giving  the  state  a  right  of  action  for 
debts  already  paid  by  warrant  on  the  ground  that  such  pay- 
ments were  void  impairs  the  obligation  of  that  contract.-'529 
The  repeal  of  a  statute  authorizing  state  bonds  or  coupons  to 
be  received  in  payment  of  taxes  or  debts  due  the  state  violates 
the  contract  with  the  bondholders  and  is  void.330  The  provi- 
sion in  general  terms  that  such  bonds  and  coupons  shall  be 
receivable  for  taxes  and  debts  due  the  state  applies  to  debts 
existing  before  the  issue  of  the  bonds,331  and  any  restriction  as 
to  the  kind  of  debts  for  which  they  shall  be  receivable  is  void 
to  that  extent.332  Under  such  a  provision  bonds  and  coupons 
are  receivable  in  payment  of  license  taxes,333  and  in  payment 
of  costs  in  suits  to  collect  taxes.334  An  act  which  provides 
that  in  suits  wherein  the  defendant  alleges  the  tender  of  cou- 
pons in  payment  of  taxes  he  shall  be  obliged  to  prove  their 
genuineness  does  not  violate  any  right  to  have  such  coupons  re- 
ceived in  payment;335  but  an  act  requiring  the  holders  of  such 
coupons,  in  suits  involving  their  genuineness  to  produce  in 
court  the  bonds  from  which  they  were  cut  and  to  prove  that 
they  were  actually  cut  therefrom,  or  an  act  excluding  expert 
evidence  to  prove  their  genuineness,  is  void.336     So,  also,  an 

320  Houston  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Texas,  177  U.  S.  98.  20  S.  Ct.  545,  44 
L.  ed.  673. 

330  Antoni  v.  Greenhow,  107  U.  S.  770,  2  S.  Ct.  91,  27  L.  ed.  468; 
Poindexter  v.  Greenhow,  114  U.  S.  278,  5  S.  Ct.  903,  29  L.  ed.  185; 
Ohaffin  v.  Taylor,  114  IT.  S.  309,  5  S.  Ct.  924,  29  L.  ed.  199;  S.  C, 
116  U.  S.  567,  6  S.  Ct.  518,  29  L.  ed.  727. 

331  Eoyall  v.  Virginia,  116  U.  S.  578,  6  S.  Ct.  510,  29  L.  ed.  735. 

332  McGahey  v.  Virginia,  135  U.  S.  701,  10  S.  Ct.  972,  34  L.  ed. 
304;  Baltimore  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Allen,  17  Fed.  171;  Striekler  v.  Yager, 
29  Fed.  244;  Willis  v.  Miller,  29  Fed.  238;  Antoni  v.  Wright,  22  Gratt. 
833. 

333  Harvey  v.  Virginia,  20  Fed.  411. 

334  McGahey  v.  Virginia,  135  U.  S.  697,  10  S.  Ct.  972,  34  L.  ed. 
304;   but  see  Ellet*  v.  Commonwealth,  85  Va.  517,  8  S.  E.  246. 

335  Ex  parte  Ayers,  123  U.  S.  495,  31  L.  ed.  216;  McGahey  v.  Com- 
monwealth, 85  Va.  519,  8  S.  E.  244;  Laube  v.  Commonwealth,  85  Va. 
530,   8  S.   E.   246. 

336  McGahey  v.  Virginia,  135  U.  S.  694,  10  S.  Ct.  972,  34  L.  ed. 
304;  overruling  Newton  v.  Commonwealth,  82  Va.  647;  Commonwealth 
v.  WeHer,  82  Va.  721,  1  S.  E.  102;  Commonwealth  v.  Booker,  82  Va. 

Notes  on  Constitution — 20 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1  Obligation  of  Contracts.       306 

act  which  requires  that  all  demands  against  the  state,  except- 
ing for  salaries  of  officers,  must  be  approved  by  a  board  of  ex- 
aminers before  warrants  can  be  drawn  therefor,  is  void  as  to 
contracts  giving  an  absolute  right  to  such  warrants,337  and  a 
statute  providing  that  no  law  levying  a  tax  to  pay  interest  on 
bonds  shall  take  effect  until  such  law  shall  have  been  submitted 
to  popular  vote  materially  impairs  the  obligation  of  such 
bonds.338  And  the  same  is  true  of  a  law  requiring  a  suit  to 
determine  the  validity  of  coupons  tendered  in  payment  of 
taxes.339 

A  state  may  change  the  mode  of  paying  its  indebtedness  pro- 
viding no  substantial  right  is  thereby  impaired,340  but  an  act 
postponing  such  payment  is  unconstitutional.341 

The  consent  of  a  state  to  be  sued  is  a  mere  privilege  and 
not  a  contract.342  Accordingly  a  statute  allowing  suits  may  be 
repealed  even  as  to  actions  already  pending,343  and  mandamus 
will  lie  to  compel  the  dismissal  of  a  suit  pending  upon  the  re- 
peal of  such  a  statute.344  The  exercise  by  a  state  of  its  power 
to  repeal  a  grant  of  authority  to  its  courts  to  audit  a  claim 

964,  7  S.  E.  381;  Bryan  v.  Commonwealth,  85  Va.  526,  8  S.  E.  246; 
Laube  v.  Commonwealth,  85  Va.  530,  8  S.  E.  246,  and  reversing  Mc- 
Gahey  v.  Commonwealth,  85  Va.  519,  S  S.  E.  244. 

337  McCauley  v.  Brooks,  16  Cal.  11. 

338  State  v.  Young,  29  Minn.  474,  9  N.  W.  737.  But  .so*  B:\ltzer 
v.  State,  104  N.  C.  265,  10  S.  E.  153. 

339  McGahey  v.  Virginia,  135  U.  S.  695,  10  S.  Ct.  972,  34  L.  ed. 
304,  overruling  Commonwealth  v.  Jones,  82  Va.  789,  1  S.  E.  84. 

340  Sharp  v.  Contra  Costa  County,  34  Cal.  284;  Lamkin  v.  Sterling, 
1  Idaho,  92. 

341  Forstall  v.  Consolidated  Assn.  etc.,  34  La.  Ann.  770.  But  see 
Swann  v.  Buck,  40  Miss.  268. 

342  Beers  v.  Arkansas,  20  How.  529,  15  L.  ed.  991;  Bank  of  Wash- 
ington v.  Arkansas,  20  How.  530,  15  L.  ed.  993;  Memphis  etc.  R.  R. 
v.  Tennessee,  101  U.  S.  340,  25  L.  ed.  960;  In  re  Avers,  123  U.  S. 
505,  8  S.  Ct.  183,  31  L.  ed.  216;  Hans  v.  Louisiana,  134  U.  S.  17,  10 
S.  Ct.  508,  33  L.  ed.  842. 

343  Beers  v.  Arkansas,  20  How.  529,  15  L.  ed.  991;  South  etc.  Ry. 
v.  Alabama,  101  U.  S.  832,  26  L.  ed.  973;  State  v.  Bank  of  Tennesse3, 
3  Baxt.  395. 

344  Ex  parte  State,  52  Ala.  235,  23  Am.  Rep.  571. 


307  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

against  itself  does  not  impair  the  obligation  of  a  contract  en- 
tered into  when  the  authority  existed.345 

Prohibition  as  Applied  to  Other  Public  Contracts. 


A  contract  for  public  printing  let,  according  to  constitu- 
tional requirement,  to  the  lowest  bidder  is  within  the  protec- 
tion of  this  clause  and  cannot  be  invalidated  by  a  subsequent 
legislature,340  and  where  the  office  of  public  printer  has  been 
abolished  by  the  repeal  of  the  statute  creating  it,  private  con- 
tracts for  state  printing  cannot  be  revoked.347  A  contract  be- 
tween the  state  and  the  publishers  of  the  reports  of  the  state 
supreme  court,  whereby  the  latter  are  given  the  protection  of 
copyright  procured  by  the  state,  is  impaired  by  a  law  requir- 
ing the  judges  to  prepare  and  file  syllabi  which  would  thus  be- 
come part  of  the  record  and  free  for  publication  under  the  state 
constitution.348  An  act  adopting  a  certain  text-book  for  use  in 
schools,  and  prescribing  the  period  of  its  use,  does  not,  how- 
ever, constitute  a  contract  with  the  publishers  of  the  adopted 
book,  precluding  a  change  during  the  prescribed  period.349 

Contracts  for  public  works  are  also  protected,  and  where  a 
statute  provides  that  contracts  to  construct  roads  shall  in  all 
cases  be  let  to  the  lowest  responsible  bidder,  another  person 
cannot  be  substituted  in  place  of  such  bidder.350  But  a  state 
law  suspending  or  discontinuing  the  work  on  a  public  building, 
under  contract,  or  providing  for  its  continuance  by  other 
agencies,  is  not  objectionable  under  this  prohibition;  the  obli- 
gation of  the  contract  is  not  impaired  thereby,  for  the  con- 
tractor, if  not  in  default,  has  a  just  claim  against  the  state  for 
damages.351     The  legislature  may  change  the  rate  of  compensa- 

345  Baltzer  v.  North  Carolina,  161  U.  S.  245,  16  S.  Ct.  500,  40  L. 
ed.  648. 

346  State  v.  Barker,  4  Kan.  324,  96  Am.  Dec.  175. 
34  7   Jones  v.  Hobbs,  4  Baxt.  113. 

348  In  re  Headnotes  to  Opinions,  43  Mich.  641,  8  N.  W.  552.  See, 
on  subject  of  copyright  by  state,  Banks  v.  Manchester,  128  U.  S. 
252,  9  S.  Ct.  36,  32  L.  ed.  425. 

349  Bancroft  v.  Thayer,  5  Saw.  502,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  835. 

350  Hannah    v.    Fife,    27    Mich.    172. 

351  Lord   v.   Thomas,   64   N.   Y.   107. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  308 

tion  to  be  paid  for  services  performed  if  no  contract  right  is 
thereby  impaired.352 

A  lease  whereby  the  state  gives  to  an  individual  the  right  to 
the  services  of  its  convicts  is  a  contract  which  cannot  be  im- 
paired by  a  lease  to  another.353  There  is  no  contract  between 
the  state  and  a  convict  that  he  shall  be  kept  in  the  penitentiary 
and  there  perform  the  labor  imposed  by  his  sentence,  which  is 
impaired  by  the  lease  of  his  labor.354  It  has  been  held,  how- 
ever, that  contracts  for  convict  labor,  whether  made  with  the 
warden  or  the  inspectors,  are  always  subject  to  the  right  of  the 
legislature  to  change  its  policy  in  regard  to  the  state's  penal 
system.355 

A  grant  made  for  the  purpose  of  public  instruction  is  not 
subject  to  subsequent  legislative  control;356  but  if  a  scholar- 
ship does  not  name  the  place  of  tuition  the  locality  of  the 
college  may  be  changed.357  Where  parties  dedicate  a  square 
to  public  use  the  legislature  cannot  authorize  its  sale  and  use 
for  a  purpose  foreign  to  the  object  of  the  grant;358  but  sub- 
jecting the  land  of  a  grantee  to  the  payment  of  his  debts  does 
not  impair  vested  rights  under  the  grant.359 

In  the  exercise  of  its  police  powers  the  legislature  may  pro- 
hibit the  use  of  a  place  as  a  cemetery,  although  there  is  a  cov- 
enant in  the  grant  that  the  place  may  be  so  used.360 

A  law  for  establishment  of  a  county  seat  has  reference  to  a 
public  subject  with  respect  to  which  one  legislature  cannot  bind 

352  Clark  v.  State,  142  N.  Y.  101,  36  N.  E.  817. 

353  Georgia  Penitentiary  Co.  v.  Nelms,  71  Ga.  301. 

3 ri 4  Mason  etc.  Co.  v.  Main  Jellico  Mountain  Coal  Co.,  87  Ky.  467, 
9  S.  W.  391. 

355  Hancock  v.   Ewing,  55   Mo.   101. 

356  Terrett  v.  Taylor,  9  Cr.  43,  3  L.  ed.  650;  Grammar  School  V. 
Burt,   11   Vt.    682. 

307  Houston  v.  Jefferson  College,  63  Pa.  St.  428. 

358  Warren  v.  Mayor,  22  Iowa,  351. 

309  Livingston  v.  Moore,  7  Pet.  469,  8  L.  ed.  751;  Baldw.  424, 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  8416. 

360  Coates  v.  New  York,  7  Cow.  5S5;  Presbyterian  Church  v.  New 
York,  5  Cow.  538.  And  see  Lake  View  v.  Rose  Hill  Cemetery,  70 
111.  131,  22  Am.  Rep.  71. 


309  Obligation  op  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

its  successors,  and  the  location  may  be  changed  notwithstand- 
ing the  original  establishment  was  upon  conditions  which  were 
fulfilled.361  So  an  act  providing  that  a  county  seat  shall  not 
be  removed  without  repayment  to  land  owners  of  expenditures 
incurred  on  the  faith  of  its  location,  is  not  a  contract.362  The 
same  rule  applies  to  the  location  of  a  state  capitol.363 

Where  a  religious  corporation  is  under  a  disability  to  con- 
vey by  its  charter,  the  legislature  may  authorize  a  sale,364  and 
a  statute  providing  for  the  sale  of  lands  by  tenants  in  common, 
or  joint  tenants,  is  valid.365  A  statute  perfecting  a  voidable 
entry  and  giving  a  patent  therefor  is  unobjectionable,  although 
it  devests  a  grant  made  after  entry.366 

Legislative  Control  of  Municipal  Corporations. 

Public  corporations,  such  as  counties,  towns,  and  cities,  are 
created  by  authority  of  the  legislature  and  invested  with  sub- 
ordinate legislative  powers  to  be  exercised  for  local  purposes 
connected  with  the  public  good.367  The  charters  of  such 
corporations  cannot  be  considered  contracts  within  the  protec- 
tion of  the  obligation  clause,368  and  the  legislature  has  unlim- 

361  Newton  v.  Mahoning  County  Commrs.,  100  U.  S.  559,  25  L.  eel. 
710,  affirming  26  Ohio  St.  618;  Ewell  v.  Tucker,  1  Blackf.  285;  Alley 
v.  Denson,  8  Tex.  297;  Luce  v.  Fensler,  85  Iowa,  601,  52  N.  W.  519. 
But  see  Gill  v.  Scowden,  14  Phila.  626. 

362  Moses  v.  Kearney,  31   Ark.   261. 

363  Edwards  v.  Lesueur,  132  Mo.  440,  33  S.  W.  1135,  31  L.  R.  A. 
815. 

364  Barton's  Appeal,  57  Pa.  St.  213. 

365  Richardson  v.   Monson,  23   Conn.    94. 

366  Williams  v.  Norris,  12  Wheat.  117,  6  L.  ed.  571. 

367  Bissell  v.  Jeffersonville,  24  How.  294,  16  L.  ed.  664;  Jones  v. 
Pensacola,  13  Fed.  Cas.  1005;  Leavenworth  v.  Miller,  7  Kan.  506, 
12  Am.  Rep.  439. 

368  Trustees  Dartmouth  College  v.  Woodward,  4  Wheat.  629,  4 
L.  ed.  629;  Merriwether  v.  Garrett,  102  U.  S.  511,  26  L.  ed.  197; 
East  Hartford  v.  Hartford  Br.,  10  How.  511,  13  L.  ed.  518;  Barnes 
v.  District  of  Columbia,  91  U.  S.  540,  23  L.  ed.  440;  Mount  Pleasant 
v.  Beckwith,  100  U.  S.  514,  25  L.  ed.  699;  Oshkosh  Waterworks  Co.  v. 
Oshkosh,  187  U.  S.  437,  23  S.  Ct.  234,  47  L.  ed.  249;  Cornell  v.  Walsh, 
107  Ind.  372;  State  v.  Peoples'  etc.  Co.,  46  La.  Ann.  1031,  15  South. 
408;  Bradford  v.  Carey,  5  Me.  339;  Baltimore  v.  State,  15  Md.  376; 
Commonwealth  v.  Plaisted,  148  Mass.  375,  19  N.  E.  224,  2  L.   R.   A. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1  Obligation  of  Contracts.       310 

ited  power  to  alter,  annul  or  repeal  them  unless  the  state  con- 
stitution provides  otherwise.369  A  municipal  corporation  is  a 
mere  creature  of  the  legislature,  established  for  the  purposes 
of  government  and  entirely  subject  to  the  legislative  will;370 
transactions  between  the  legislature  and  such  a  corporation  are 
in  the  nature  of  legislation  rather  than  of  compact.371  A 
power  to  alter  and  change  public  corporations  and  to  adapt 
them  to  public  purposes  is  implied,372  and  grants  of  power  may 
at  any  time  be  resumed  by  the  legislature.373  Those  grants 
are  not  franchises  in  the  original  meaning  of  that  word,  but 
mandates  only,  and  may  be  repealed  except  so  far  as  rights  ac- 
quired by  third  parties  under  them  may  be  affected.374 

A  school  district  is  a  public  corporation  within  the  meaning 
of  that  term  as  here  employed,375  and  the  rights  of  the  inhab- 

142;  City  of  Detroit  v.  Blackeby,  21  Mich.  84,  4  Am.  Eep.  450;  People 
v.  Morris,  13  Wend.  325;  People  v.  Pinekney,  32  N.  Y.  377;  In  re 
Clinton  St.,  2  Brewst.  599;  Lynch  v.  Lafland,  4  Cold.  96. 

369  Commissioners  of  Laramie  County  v.  Albany  County,  92  U. 
S.  308,  23  L.  ed.  552;  North  Yarmouth  v.  Skillings,  45  Me.  133,  71 
Am.  Dec.  530;  Cobb  v.  Kingman,  15  Mass.  137;  People  v.  Hill,  7 
Cal.  97;  Philadelphia  v.  Fox,  14  P.  F.  Smith,  169;  Gas  and  Water 
Co.  v.  Downington,  175  Pa.  St.  341,  34  Atl.  799. 

370  New  Orleans  v.  New  Orleans  Waterworks   Co.,  142  U.  S.  79, 

12  S.  Ct.  142,  35  L.  ed.  943. 

3T1  East  Hartford  v.  Hartford  Br.  Co.,  10  How.  534,  13  L.  ed. 
518;  Williamson  v.  New  Jersey,  130  U.  S.  199,  9  S.  Ct.  457,  32  L.  ed. 
915;  Erskine  v.  Steele  Co.,  87  Fed.  634;  Commissioners  v.  Holyoke 
W.  P.  Co.,  104  Mass.  459,  6  Am.  Eep.  259;  Parkhurst  v.  Capital  City 
Ky.,  23  Or.  479,  32  Pac.  306;  Trustees  v.  Tatman,  13  111.  27,  Reynolds 
v.  Baldwin,  1  La.  Ann.  162;  Layton  v.  New  Orleans,  12  La.  Ann.  515. 

372  Maryland  v.  Baltimore  etc.  R.  R.,  3  How.  550,  11  L.  ed.  714; 
Works  v.  Emigrant  Co.,  164  U.  S.  576,  17  S.  Ct.  193,  41  L.  ed.  552; 
Erskine  v.  Steele  Co.,  87  Fed.  634;  Mayor  of  Baltimore  v.  State,  15 
Md.  385;  Wooster  v.  Plymouth,  62  N.  H.  208;  Bridgeport  v.  Hub- 
bell,  5  Conn.  237;  Bush  v.  Shipman,  5  111.  186;  Mills  v.  Williams,  11 
Ired.  558;  Gatzweiller  v.  People,  14  111.  142;  North  Yarmouth  v.  Skill- 
ings, 45  Me.  133;  Trustees  v.  Aberdeen,  21  Miss.  645;  Peterson  v. 
Society,  24  N.  J.  385;  People  v.  Morris,  13  Wend.  325. 

373  Terrett  v.  Taylor,  9  Cr.  52,  3  L.  ed.  650;  Trustees  v.  Tatman, 

13  111.  27;  St.  Louis  v.  Gaslight  Co.,  5  Mo.  App.  513. 

374  Police  Jury  v.  Shreveport,  5  La.  Ann.  661;  State  v.  Pillsbury, 
31  La.  Ann.  1. 

37.0   Mobile   School   Commrs.   v.   Putnam,   44   Ala.   506. 


311        Obligation  of  Contracts.  Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

itants  of  the  district  which  arise  out  of  and  depend  upon  the 
corporate  existence  of  the  district  are  of  a  public  and  political 
nature,  and  are  liable  to  be  taken  away  by  the  legislature.376 
A  municipal  corporation's  powers  do  not  rest  upon  contracts 
with  the  state.377 


Territorial  Limits. 


In  the  absence  of  some  express  restriction  in  the  state  con- 
stitution, the  legislature  may  prescribe  and  enlarge,  from  time 
to  time,  the  boundaries  of  a  municipal  corporation,378  and  this 
without  the  consent  of  the  citizens  of  the  annexed  land.379 
The  fact  that  the  extension  of  a  city's  limits  includes  purely 
agricultural  land  outside  the  original  area  is  immaterial.380 
Discriminations  between  individuals  and  corporations  as  to 
annexation  of  land  used  for  agricultural  purposes  cannot  be 
urged  as  a  ground  for  defeating  the  annexation  of  land  used 
for  other  purposes;381  nor  can  the  courts  interfere  in  favor  of 
one  who,  by  an  unnecessary  extension  of  the  city  limits,  is  ren- 
dered subject  to  municipal  taxation  without  any  corresponding 
benefit  to  his  property.382 

A  statute  may  take  part  of  the  territory  of  one  municipal 
corporation  and  annex  it  to  another,383  and  counties  or  county 
organizations  may  be  abolished  whenever  it  becomes  necessary 
to    do    so,    in    changing    county    lines  or    in    creating    new 

376  In  re  Farnum,  51  N.  H.  376. 

377  Mount  Pleasant  v.  Beckwith,  100  TJ.  S.  525,  25  L.  ed.  699; 
Williamson  v.  New  Jersey,  130  U.  S.  199,  9  S.  Ct.  453,  32  L.  ed.  915. 

378  City  of  New  Orleans  v.  Cazelar,  27  La.  Ann.  156;  Stoner  v. 
Flournoy,  28  La.  Ann.  850;  Groff  v.  Frederick  City,  44  Md.  67;  Mai- 
tin  v.  Dix,  52  Miss.  53,  24  Am.  Rep.  661;  City  of  Philadelphia  v. 
Fox,  14  P.  F.  Smith,  169;  McCallie  v.  Chattanooga,  3  Head,  317; 
Wade  v.  City  of  Richmond,  18  Gratt.  583. 

379  Morford  v.  Unger,  8  Iowa,  82;  Manley  v.  Raleigh,  4  Jones  Eq. 
370;  St.  Louis  v.  Russell,  9  Mo.  507;  State  v.  Miller,  55  Mo.  50. 

380  Giboney  v.  Cape  Girardeau,  58  Mo.  141. 

3Si  Clark  v.  Kansas  City,  176  U.  S.  118,  120,  20  S.  Ct.  284,  44  L. 
ed.  392. 

382  Martin  v.  Dix,  52  Miss.   53,  24   Am.  Rep.   661. 

383  Wade   v.  Richmond,  18   Gratt.   £83. 


Art.  I,  §  10.  CI.  1     Obligation  op  Contracts.  312 

counties.-"584  The  power  to  divide  the  property  is  incidental 
to  the  power  to  divide  the  territory,385  as  also  is  the  division 
of  the  municipal  indebtedness.386  But  a  law  which  repeals 
an  act  passed  upon  the  division  of  a  township,  requiring  each 
town  to  bear  its  proportionate  share  of  the  expenses  of  paupers, 
is  unconstitutional.387 

The  legislature  may  unite  and  divide  townships  and  their 
school  funds,388  and  may  dissolve  fire  districts  composed  of 
portions  of  more  than  one  town  and  provide  for  a  division  of 
their  funds;389  but  it  cannot  divert  the  fund  from  a  land 
grant  to  a  township  although  it  may  abolish  the  township.390 
Where  by  operation  of  law  the  property  of  a  town  of  the  third 
class  becomes  vested  in  the  city  upon  its  advancement  to  a  city 
of  the  second  class,  the  legislature  cannot  order  a  sale  of  the 
property  and  the  division  of  the  proceeds  between  the  city  and 
the  town.391 

Property  of  Municipalities. 


A  statute  giving  a  municipal  corporation  the  power  to  pur- 
chase   property  of  a  private    corporation  may  be    repealed  or 

384  In   re  Division   of  Howard  County,   15  Kan.   194. 

385  Richmond  v.  Lawrence,  12  111.  1;  North  Yarmouth  v.  Skillings, 
45  Me.  133,  71  Am.  Dec.  530;  Bristol  v.  New  Chester,  3  N.  H.  524; 
Call  v.  Chadbourne,  46  Me.  206;  Town  of  Windham  v.  Town  of  Port- 
land, 4  Mass.  384;  New  Hampshire  County  v.  Franklin  County,  15 
Mass.  76. 

386  People  v.  Alameda  County,  26  Cal.  641;  Whitney  v.  Town  of 
Stow,  111  Mass.  368;  Rawson  v.  Spencer,  113  Mass.  40;  Stone  v. 
Oharlestown,  114  Mass.  214;  Portwood  v.  Montgomery  County,  52 
Miss.  523;  Londonderry  v.  Derry,  8  N.  H.  320;  Metcalf  v.  State,  19 
Ohio   St.  586,  31  N.  E.   1076. 

387  Bowdoinham*  v.  Richmond,  6  Me.  112,  19  Am.  Dec.  197. 

388  Greenleaf  v.   Township,  22   111.   236. 

389  Weymouth  etc.  Fire  District  v.  Norfolk  County  Commissioners, 
108  Mass.  142. 

390  State  v.  Springfield,  6  Iud.  83;  Morton  v.  Granada  Acad.,  16 
Miss.  773. 

391  City  of  Wellington  v.  Wellington  Twp.,  46  Kan.  213,  26  Pac 
415. 


313        Obligation  of  Contracts.  Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

modified  at  the  will  of  the  legislature.392  So,  also,  a  grant 
to  a  municipal  corporation  of  the  revenues  accruing  from  a 
private  corporation  may  be  altered  or  repealed,  and  such  rev- 
enues be  appropriated  to  other  purposes  ;393  but  where  the  legis- 
lature has  granted  bonds  to  a  municipal  corporation,  a  subse- 
quent statute  vesting  the  right  to  the  bonds  in  others  is  void.394 
The  legislature  cannot  deprive  a  municipal  corporation  of  its 
private  property  without  the  consent  of  its  inhabitants;395  a 
distinction  exists  between  regulation  and  appropriation,  and  the 
legislature  may  not  arbitrarily  devest  private  property  of  the 
corporation,396  and  where  property  derived  by  municipalities 
from  other  sources  "than  the  state  is  held  for  special  uses  the 
legislature  cannot  divert  it.397  Where,  however,  a  municipality 
holds  property  merely  as  trustee,  its  rights  and.  title  are  subject 
to  be  defeated  by  the  abolishment  of  its  corporate  existence.398 
A  law  granting  to  a  town  the  right  to  operate  a  ferry  across 
a  public  river  does  not  amount  to  a  contract  and  may  be  re- 
voked by  the  legislature;399  but  it  has  been  held  that  a  bridge 
franchise  acquired  by  a  city  from  a  private  corporation  could 
not  be  impaired  by  legislation  authorizing  the  county  to  con- 
struct a  toll-gate  on  such  bridge  and  collect  tolls.400  Where  a 
city  is  seised  in  fee  of  the  lands  in  its  streets,  in  trust,  to 
keep  the  same  open,  the  legislature  may  declare  and  define  the 

392  Crescent  City  Gas  Co.  v.  New  Orleans  Gas  Co.,  27  La.  Ann. 
138. 

303  Police  Jury  v.  Shreveport,  5  La.  Ann.  661;  Marks  v.  Donaldson, 
24  La.  Ann.  242.  But  see  Ellerman  v.  Mains,  30  La.  Ann.  190,  31 
Am.  Rep.  218. 

394  Spaulding  v.   Andover,  54   N.   H.   38. 

395  Grogan  v.   San  Francisco,   18   Cal.   590. 

396  Essex  etc.  Road  Board  v.  Skinkle,  140  U.  S.  342,  11  S.  Ct. 
.'90.  35  L.  ed.  446. 

397  Commissioners  v.  Lucas,  93  XJ.  S.  115.  23  L.  ed.  822;  Mount 
Hope  Cemetery  v.  Boston,  158  Mass.  512,  35  Am.  St.  Rep.  518,  33 
N.  E.  695.  But  see  Darlington  v.  New  York,  31  N.  Y.  164,  88  Am. 
Dec.  248. 

398  Bass  v.  Fontleroy,  11  Tex.  698;  Montpelier  v.  East  Montpelier, 
29  Vt.  12,  67  Am.  Dee.  748.     See,  also,  Milam  v.  Bateman,  54  Tex.  15-?. 

399  East  Hartford  v.  East  Hartford  Br.  Co.,  10  How.  534,  13  L.  ed. 
518. 

400  City  of  Columbus  v.  Rodgers,  10  Ala.  37. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  314 

uses  and  purposes  of  the  trust;401  'but  where  land  has  been 
taken  for  the  purpose  of  a  road  and  has  been  paid  for  accord- 
ing to  law,  an  act  of  the  legislature  directing  a  reduction  in 
the  width  of  such  road,  and  in  effect  restoring  the  property 
to  its  former  owners,  is  unconstitutional  as  impairing  the  obli- 
gation of  the  contract  of  purchase.402 

Where  a  city  has  been  authorized  to  erect  and  maintain 
wharves  and  to  collect  wharfage  fees,  its  right  extends  only  to 
the  collection  of  fees  for  the  use  of  its  own  wharves,  and  no 
contract  obligation  is  impaired  by  a  grant  of  a  similar  right 
to  a  railroad  company;403  nor  is  the  contract  by  which  a  city 
acquires  a  levee  for  public  use  impaired  by  a  legislative  grant 
to  a  railroad  of  the  right  to  use  the  levee  for  a  depot.404  The 
disposition  of  municipal  property  and  funds  is  subject  also  to 
the  paramount  power  of  the  legislature.405  So  where  a  mu- 
nicipality has  conveyed  certain  property  belonging  to  it  by  de- 
fective deed  the  legislature  may  validate  the  disposition,406  and 
may  regulate  elevators  leased  by  a  city  to  a  corporation.407 

The  control  of  the  legislature  over  the  revenues  of  munici- 
palities is  as  absolute  as  the  control  over  any  municipal  prop- 
erty.408 Accordingly,  although  the  effect  of  a  statute  is  to 
pledge  city  property  to  secure  the  payment  of  a  public  debt,  the 
legislature  may  revoke  the  pledge  where  contract  rights  have 

401  Kelsey  v.  King,  33  How.  Pr.  39. 

402  People   v.   Highway  Commissioners,   53   Barb.   77. 

403  New  Orleans  etc.  E.  Co.  v.  Ellerman,  105  U.  S.  172,  26  L.  ed. 
1015. 

404  Coffin  v.  City  of  Portland,  27  Fed.  412. 

405  Board  of  Liquidation  v.  Louisville  etc.  E.  E.,  109  IT.  S.  228, 
3  S.  Ct.  144,  27  L.  ed.  916;  McDonald  v.  Maddux,  11  Cal.  187;  Payna 
v.  Treadwell,  16  Cal.  220;  Richland  County  v.  Lawrence  County,  12 
111.  1;  People  v.  Power,  25  HI.  187;  State  v.  St.  Louis  County  Court, 
34  Mo.  546;  Dickinson  v.  Marion  County  Court,  128  Mo.  427,  30 
S.  W.  103;  State  v.  Patterson,  53  N.  J.  L.  120,  20  Atl.  828. 

406  Payne  v.  Treadwell,  16  Cal.  220. 

407  Belcher  Sugar  Eef.  Co.  v.  St.  Louis  Grain  etc.  Co.,  101  Mo. 
205,  13  S.  W.  825,  8  L.  E.  A.  801. 

408  Commissioners  v.  Lucas,  93  U.  S.  108,  23  L.  ed.  822,  affirming 
44  Ind.  524;  United  States  v.  Thoman,  156  U.  S.  360,  15  S.  Ct.  378, 
39  L.  ed.  450. 


315  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

not  intervened,409  and  may  repeal  an  act  authorizing  a  certain 
disposition  of  a  city's  surplus  yearly  revenue.410  So,  also,  a 
statute  may  require  a  municipality  to  apply  its  revenues  to  the 
discharge  of  claims  based  merely  upon  equity  and  good  con- 
science.411 or  may  require  that  money  be  raised  for  a  public 
purpose,  such  as  the  construction  and  repair  of  highways  and 
the  erection  of  public  buildings.412  On  the  other  hand,  while 
the  right  to  reimbursement  for  damages  caused  by  a  mob  may 
be  based  upon  equity  and  good  conscience,  it  may  be  withdrawn 
or  limited  by  the  legislature.413 

Municipal  Government  and  Officers. 


A  municipal  corporation  has  no  contract  rights  in  its  public 
offices,  and  powers  previously  vested  in  municipal  officers  may 
be  transferred  to  officers  appointed  by  the  governor,414  and  the 
power  to  contract  may  be  taken  from  a  board  of  supervisors 
and  conferred  upon  another  officer  or  body.415  The  establish- 
ment of  police  districts  and  their  government  are  within  the 
power  of  the  legislature,416  and  the  transfer  of  the  police  force 
from  a  city  government  to  state  commissioners  does  not  impair 
any   contract   obligation.417     Commissioners   of   highways   de- 

409  Board  of  Liquidation  v.  Louisville  etc.  K.  K.,  109  TJ.  S.  228, 
3  S.  Ct.  144,  27  L.  ed.  916. 

4io  United  States  v.  Thoman,  156  U.  S.  360,  15  S.  Ct.  378,  39  L. 
ed.  450. 

411  Blanding  v.  Burr,  13  Cal.  351;  Town  of  Guilford  v.  Supervisors, 
13  N.  Y.  143;  Creighton  v.  San  Francisco,  42  Cal.  446;  Craft  v. 
Lofinek,  34  Kan.  365,  8  Pac.  359.  But  see  Warren  County  v.  Cowan, 
60  Miss.  876,  45  Am.  Rep.  453. 

412  People  v.  Flagg,  46  N.  Y.  401;  People  v.  Supervisors,  50  Cal. 
561;  Thomas  v.  Leland,  24  Wend.  65;  Pumphrey  v.  Mayor  of  Balti- 
more, 47  Md.  145,  28  Am.  Rep.  446;  Carter  v.  Cambridge  etc.  Bridge 
Props.,  104  Mass.  236;  Perkins  v.  Slack,  86  Pa.  St.  270. 

413  Louisiana  v.  Mayor  of  New  Orleans,  109  U.  S.  287,  3  S.  Ct. 
211,  27  L.  ed.  936. 

414  State  v.  Kolsem,  130  Ind.  434,  29  N.  E.  595,  14  L.  R.  A.  566. 

415  Pott  v.  Sheboygan  County,  25  Wis.  506;  State  v.  Cogshall,  65 
N.  W.  2. 

416  Galley  v.  Ginshard,  27  La.  Ann.  396;  Pickler  v.  McLellon  Dry 
Dock    Co.,    38   La.    Ann.    412. 

417  City  of  Baltimore  v.  State,  15  Md.  376;  State  v.  Seavey,  22 
Neb.  454,  35  N.  \\r.  228. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Ormgation  of  Contracts.  316 

rive  their  authority  from  the  legislature  which  may  revoke  or 
resume  it  at  any  time.418  The  trustees  of  a  charity  granted 
to  a  city  may  be  changed  by  the  legislature.419 

The  legislature  may  confirm  the  election  of  officers  held  be- 
fore the  act  of  incorporation  and  validate  the  acts  of  such  of- 
ficers,420 may  designate  another  depositary  for  public  funds, 
other  than  the  one  named  in  the  charter,421  remove  an  officer 
for  failure  to  take  an  oath  of  allegiance,422  require  payment  for 
services  rendered  by  an  officer  under  a  prior  act  which  required 
such  services  to  be  paid  for  by  other  persons,4^3  or  may  re- 
quire a  city  to  pay  an  officer  compensation  in  addition  to  the 
salary  paid  by  the  state.424  So,  also,  the  legislature  may  alter 
a  municipal  charter  so  as  to  change  the  person  upon  whom  ser- 
vice of  process  must  be  made,425  or  may  withdraw  or  modify 
the  power  to  grant  licenses,426  or  may  change  the  mode  and 
time  of  payment  of  municipal  indebtedness,427  or  may  regulate 
the  mode  of  selection  and  removal  of  a  county  seat,428  or  may 
increase  the  number  of  directors  to  which  a  municipal  corpora- 
tion is  entitled.429 

418  People  v.  Fishkill  etc.  Co.,  27  Barb.  445, 

419  Philadelphia  v.  Fox,  64  Pa.   St.   169. 

420  State  v.  Kline,  23  Ark.  587. 

421  State  v.  Boyles,   7  Blackf.  90. 

422  State  v.  Adams,  44  Mo.  570. 

423  Southworth  v.  City,  24  La.  Ann.  312.  But  see  Warren  County 
v.  Cowan,  60  Miss.  876,  45  Am.  Kep.  453. 

424  City  of  Covington  v.  Menzies,  24  S.  W.  242. 

425  Perkins   v.  Watertown,  5  Biss.  320,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,991. 

426  Gatzweiller  v.  People,  14  111.  142;  Morris  v.  People,  13  Wend. 
325;  City  of  Winona  v.  Whipple,  24  Minn.  61;  Dickason  v.  Marion 
County   Court,  128  Mo.  427,  30   S.   W.   103. 

427  Hunsaker  v.  Borden,  5  Cal.  288,  63  Am.  Dee.  130. 

428  Newton  v.  Mahoning  County  Commrs.,  100  TJ.  S.  548,  25  L.  ed. 
710;  Moses  v.  Kearney,  31  Ark.  261;  Ewell  v.  Tucker,  1  Blackf.  208; 
Armstrong  v.  Dearborn  County  Commrs.,  4  Blackf.  208;  Hansrick  v. 
House,  17  Ga.  56;  Adams  v.  Logan,  11  111.  336;  Harris  v.  Shaw,  13 
111.  456;  State  v.  Jones,  1  Ired.  414;  Alley  v.  Denson,  8  Tex.  297.  Bui 
see  State  v.  Perry  County  Commrs.,  5  Ohio  St.  497;  Gill  v.  Scowden, 
14  Phila.  626. 

429  Miller  v.  State,  15  Wall.  478,  21  L.  ed.  98;  People  v.  Hills,  16 
Barb.  340. 


317  Obligation  op  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

A  charter  exempting  corporation  stock  from  taxation,  except 
for  state  purposes,  thus  affecting  a  city's  taxing  power,  is  bind- 
ing upon  the  municipality.430  A  statute  allowing  a  municipal 
corporation  to  set  off  a  claim  for  benefits  against  a  suit  for 
damages  impairs  no  contract  obligation.431 

Municipal  Contracts  Generally. 


Municipal  corporations, '  with  respect  to  their  private  rights 
and  interests,  are  protected  by  the  constitution  against  legis- 
lation impairing  the  obligation  of  contracts,432  and  such  cor- 
porations, while  subject  to  state  control,  are,  as  owners  of  stock 
and  issuers  of  bonds,  secured  by  all  the  guaranties  which  pro- 
tect the  engagements  of  private  individuals.433  It  is  not 
within  the  power  of  the  legislature,  by  the  repeal  of  a  munici- 
pal charter,  to  invade  the  rights  of  a  city's  creditors  and  cancel 
its  indebtedness ;  such  legislation  impairs  the  obligation  of  con- 
tracts.434 and  where  the  state  authorizes  a  municipal  corpora- 
tion to  contract  and  to  exercise  its  power  of  local  taxation  to 
the  extent  necessary  to  meet  its  engagements,  the  power  given 
cannot  be  withdrawn  until  the  contract  is  satisfied.435 

430  State  Bank  v.  Madison,  3  Ind.  43;  Bank  v.  New  Albany,  11 
Ind.  139. 

43i  Baldwin  v.  Newark,  9  Vroom,  158;  Loweree  v.  Newark,  9 
Vroom,  151. 

432  New  Orleans  v.  New  Orleans  Waterworks  Co.,  142  U.  S.  91, 
12  S.  Gt.  142,  35  L.  ed.  943. 

433  Mobile  v.  Watson,  116  U.  S.  305,  6  S.  Ct.  398,  29  L.  ed.  620. 

434  Milner  v.  City  of  Pensacola,  2  Woods,  632,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9619; 
Bleakey  v.  Williams,  20  Pitts.  L.  J.  66;  Morris  v.  State,  62  Tex. 
728. 

435  Von  Hoffman  v.  City  of  Quincy,  4  Wall.  554,  18  L.  ed.  403; 
Galena  v.  Amy,  5  Wall.  709,  18  L.  ed.  560;  Riggs  v.  Johnson  County, 
6  Wall.  194,  18  L.  ed.  768;  Wolff  v.  New  Orleans,  103  XL  S.  366,  26 
L.  ed.  395;  Louisiana  v.  Pillsbury,  105  U.  S.  288,  26  L.  ed.  1090;  Mo- 
tile v.  Watson,  116  U.  S.  305,  6  S.  Ct.  405,  29  L.  ed.  620;  United 
States  v.  Jefferson  County,  5  Dill.  313,  1  MeCrary,  359,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
15,472;  Lansing  v.  County,  1  Dill.  522,  2  Abb.,  U.  S.  53;  Hicks  v. 
Cleveland,  106  Fed.  429;  Padgett  v.  Post,  106  Fed.  600;  People  v. 
Bell,  10  Cal.  570;  Dominic  v.  Sayre,  3  Sand.  555;  McCless  v.  Meekins, 
117   N.  C.  40,  23  S.  E.  101. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  Cl.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  318 

A  state  cannot  release  a  municipal  corporation  from  its  con- 
tracts without  the  consent  of  the  other  party,436  nor  can  it  re- 
quire the  city  to  rescind  a  sale  of  land  made  when  such  sale 
was  authorized  by  law;437  nor  impair  a  contract  for  street 
work.438  Upon  the  same  ground,  a  municipal  corporation 
itself  cannot  revoke  a  donation  actually  made  or  impose  new 
terms  or  duties  upon  the  donees.439  If  a  city  may  legally  pur- 
chase the  property  of  a  private  corporation,  a  subsequent  stat- 
ute taking  away  the  right  cannot  affect  it  so  far  as  the  right  has 
been  actually  exercised.440 

The  power  conferred  upon  municipal  corporations  to  raise 
money  is  political  and  its  application  is  within  the  control  of 
the  legislature;441  but  a  state  cannot  authorize  a  municipal 
corporation  to  levy  a  tax  which  the  state  itself  has  no  power  to 
levy.442  A  city  may  make  such  contracts  as  are  allowed  by  the 
act  incorporating  it,  but  it  cannot  pledge  its  legislative  power 
to  bind  its  legislative  capacity.443  When  a  municipal  corpora- 
tion engages  in  matters  not  public  in  their  nature  it  is  bound  by 
its  acts  as  much  as  if  it  were  a  natural  person,444  and  if  it 
sells  lots  the  use  of  the  streets  passes  as  an  appurtenant  and  it 
cannot  afterward  alter  or  defeat  the  dedication.445  The  com- 
pliance with  the  conditions  of  a  grant  is  a  contract  which  can- 

436  Davenport  County  v.  Davenport,  13  Iowa,  229;  People  v.  Fish, 
kill  P.  E.  Co.,  27  Barb.  445;  Town  of  Duanesborough  v.  Jenkins,  57 
N.  Y.  177;  State  v.  Williams,  10  Tex.  Civ.  App.  346,  30  S.  W.  477; 
Atkins  v.  Town  of  Randolph,  31  Vt.  226. 

437  Butler  v.  Chariton,  13  Mo.  112. 

438  Goodale  v.  Fennell,  27  Ohio    St.  426,  22  Am.  Rep.  321. 

439  Louisville  v.  University,  15  B.  Mon.  642;  Los  Angeles  v.  Los 
Angeles  City  Water  Co.,  61  Cal.  65. 

440  Sala  v.  New  Orleans,  2  Woods,  188,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12.246. 

441  People  v.  Power,  25  111.  187. 

442  O 'Donnelly  v.  Bailey,  24  Miss.  386;  Camden  etc.  R.  R.  v.  Com- 
missioners, 18  N.  J.  71;  Camden  etc.  R.  R.  v.  Hillegas,  18  N.  J.  11. 

443  Gozzler  v.  Georgetown,  6  Wheat.  598,  5  L.  ed.  339;  State  v. 
Graves,  19  Md.  534,  81  Am.  Dec.  646;  Lake  etc.  Ry.  v.  Mayor.  77  Md. 
375,  26  Atl.  514,  20  L.  R.  A.  126;  Coates  v.  New  York,  7  Cow.  585. 

444  West  Savings  Fund  v.  Philadelphia,  31  Pa.  St.  175. 
443  Breed  v.  Cunningham,  2  Cal.  361. 


319  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

not  be  impaired,446  and  an  ordinance  requiring  a  license  fee 
after  the  grant  of  a  franchise  to  run  street-cars  has  been  de- 
clared void.447  So  also  the  repeal  of  an  ordinance  requiring  a 
bond  from  an  auctioneer  cannot  destroy  or  affect  any  right  ac- 
quired under  the  ordinance.448 

Every  transaction  of  a  municipal  corporation  with  third 
parties  does  not,  however,  partake  of  a  contractual  nature;  nor 
does  every  act  of  the  legislature  injuriously  affecting  such 
third  parties  come  within  the  prohibition  of  this  clause.  The 
mere  fact  that  a  contract  made  by  a  city  with  a  water  company 
has  received  final  judicial  interpretation  does  not,  so  far  as  the 
city's  rights  are  concerned,  in  any  way  preclude  the  exercise 
of  the  legislature  to  change  the  terms  of  the  contract,449  and 
where  the  legislature  in  incorporating  a  gaslight  company  re- 
served to  the  city  the  privilege  of  purchase,  no  contract  obli- 
gation is  impaired  by  the  recall  of  the  privilege.450  So,  also, 
where  a  statute  forbids  the  abandonment  of  a  railroad  station 
without  the  consent  of  the  commissioners,  such  consent  when 
obtained  gives  no  contract  right  which  is  impaired  by  a  later 
act  ordering  resumption  of  the  use  of  the  station.451 

The  erection  of  a  toll  bridge,  under  authorization  by  the  leg- 
islature, within  a  few  yards  of  a  ferry  licensed  by  a  county 
under  state  laws,  does  not  impair  the  obligation  of  the  ferry 
franchise.152  A  grant  of  waterfront  land  by  a  city,  with  a 
right  to  construct  wharves,  is  always  subject  to  the  power  of  the 
legislature  to  change  the  waterfront,  although  such  change 
might  incidentally  render  useless  the  rights  granted  by  the 
city,453  and  a  covenant  in  a  deed  by  a  city  that  adjacent  streets 

446  Brooklyn  C.  K.  E.  v.  Brooklyn  etc.  Co.,  32  Barb.  358. 

447  Mayor  v.  Second  Ave.  etc.  Co.,  34  Barb.  41;  In  re  Peters,  New- 
York  El.  E.  E.,  70  N.  Y.  327;  East  Louisiana  Ey.  v.  City  of  New 
Orleans,  46  La.  Ann.  526,  15  South.  157. 

44S  McMahan  v.  Mayor,  2  Har.  &  J.  41. 

449  New  Orleans  v.  New  Orleans  Waterworks  Co.,  142  U.  S.  79, 
12  S.  Ct.  142,  35  L.  ed.  943. 

450  Crescent  City  Gaslight  Co.  v.  New  Orleans  Gaslight  Co.,  27 
La.  Ann.  138. 

451  New  Haven  etc.  Ey.  v.  Hamersley,  104  U.  S.  1,  26  L.  ed.  629. 

452  Dyer  v.  Tuscaloosa  Br.  Co.,  2  Port.  296,  27  Am.  Dec.  655. 

453  Whitney  v.  City  of  New  York,  6  Abb.  N.  C.  329. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  320 

should  never  be  appropriated  to  private  uses  is  not  impaired  by 
a  grant  of  the  partial  use  of  the  street  by  an  elevated  rail- 
road.454 A  license  for  the  carrying  on  of  a  particular  business 
within  a  city  is  not  a  contract  within  the  meaning  of  the  obli- 
gation clause,455  and  where  a  city,  for  a  valuable  consideration, 
has  authorized  a  person  to  connect  his  property  with  a  certain 
railroad,  it  is  not  thereby  precluded  from  ordering  the  removal 
of  the  railroad.456  A  city,  under  its  police  power,  may  order 
the  removal  of  powder  magazines  from  land  which  it  sold  for 
the  purpose  of  their  erection,457  and  it  may  prohibit  the  use 
of  land  for  a  cemetery  which  it  has  conveyed  to  a  church  with 
a  covenant  of  quiet  enjoyment.458  A  city  ordinance  imposing 
a  license  tax  upon  a  foreign  corporation  authorized  by  state  law 
to  transact  business  does  not  impair  any  contract  obligation.459 
The  constitutional  guaranty  against  impairment  presup- 
poses a  legal  contract  on  the  part  of  the  city,460  and  a  city  can 
convey  only  such  title  to  lands  as  is  authorized  by  law;  where 
it  attempts  to  go  beyond  this  it  creates  no  contract  within  the 
protection  of  the  constitution.461 

Municipal  Aid  to  Corporations. 


In  the  absence  of  constitutional  prohibition,  the  legislature 
may  authorize  municipal  corporations  to  extend  aid  to  corpora- 
tions of  a  public  nature,462  and  an  act  authorizing  a  subscrip- 

454  Spader  v.  New  York  El.  R.  R.,  3  Abb.  N.  C.  467;  Story  v.  New 
York  El.  R.  R.,  3  Abb.  N.  C.  478. 

455  City  of  St.  Charles  v.  Hackman,  133  Mo.  634. 

456  Branson  v.  City  of  Philadelphia,  11  Wright,  329. 

457  Davenport  v.  City  of  Richmond,  81  Va.  636,  59  Am.  Rep.  694. 

458  Presbyterian  Church  v.  New  York,  5  Cow.  538;  Coates  v.  New 
York,  7  Cow.  585. 

459  Home  Ins.  Co.  v.  City  Council,  93  U.  S.  122,  23  L.  ed.  825; 
Osborn  v.  Mobile,  16  Wall.  482,  21  L.  ed.  470;  Postal  Tel.  Co.  v. 
Charleston,  153  U.  S.  695,  10  S.  Ct.  1095,  38  L.  ed.  871. 

460  New  Orleans  v.  New  Orleans  Waterworks  Co.,  142  U.  S.  88, 
12  S.  Ct.  142,  35  L.  ed.  943;  City  Ry.  Co.  v.  Citizens'  R.  R.  Co.,  166 
TJ.  S.  564,  17  S.  Ct.  655,  41  L.  ed.  1114. 

461  Hoadley  v.  San  Francisco,  124  U.  S.  639,  8  S.  Ct.  659,  31  L.  ed. 
553;  San  Francisco  v.  Itsell,  80  Cal.  59,  22  Pac.  75;  San  Francisco  v. 
Mooney.  106  Cal.  587,  39   Pac   853. 

4t;2  Oilman  v.  Sheboygan,  2  Black,  515,  17  L.  ed.  305;  Van  Hostruck 
v.  Madison  City,  1  Wall.  296,  17  L.  ed.  538;  Rogers  v.  Burlington,  3 


321        Obligation  of  Contracts.  Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

tion  to  corporate  stock  and  a  submission  of  the  question  to  the 
people  is  constitutional.463  A  municipal  subscription  to  rail- 
road stock  made  without  authority  previously  conferred  may  be 
confirmed  by  subsequent  legislation  when  the  only  defect  is 
want  of  legislative  sanction,464  but  an  election  and  subscription 
which  is  absolutely  void  cannot  be  validated  by  any  legislative 
action,465  and  a  bona  fide  purchaser  of  such  bonds  is  not  pro- 
tected.466 

An  act  authorizing  municipal  aid  to  corporations  by  sub- 
scribing to  capital  stock  is  not  a  contract.467  So  the  legislature 
may  prohibit  municipal  corporations  from  subscribing  to  the 
stock  of  private  corporations,468  or  may  repeal  an  amendment 
to  a  city's  charter  authorizing  such  subscription,469  or  may  au- 

Wall.  665,  18  L.  ed.  79;  St.  Joseph.  Township  v.  Kogers,  16  Wall.  663, 
21  L.  ed.  3-28;  Railroad  Co.  v.  County  of  Otoe,  16  Wall.  673,  21  L. 
ed.  375;  Township  of  Pine  Grove  v.  Taleott,  19  Wall.  676,  22  L.  ed. 
27;  Harter  v.  Kernochan,  103  U.  S.  671,  26  L.  ed,  411;  Anderson  v. 
Santa  Anna,  116  IT.  S.  363,  6  S.  Ct.  413,  29  L.  ed.  633. 

463  Van  Hostruck  v.  Madison  City,  1  Wall.  296,  17  L.  ed.  538; 
Lamed  v.  Burlington,  4  Wall.  276,  18  L.  ed.  353;  Empire  v.  Darling- 
ton, 103  U.  S.  91,  25  L.  ed.  878;  Bates  Co.  v.  Winters,  112  U.  S.  327, 
28  L.  ed.  744. 

464  Grenada  Co.  v.  Brogden,  112  U.  S.  272,  5  S.  Ct.  125,  28  L.  ei 
704;  Illinois  v.  Illinois  Central  E.  E.,  33  Fed.  71;  Erskine  v.  Steele 
County,  87  Fed.  631;  Los  Angeles  Water  Co.  v.  Los  Angeles,  88  Fed. 
743. 

4  65  Marsh  v.  Fulton  County,  10  Wall.  684,  19  L.  ed.  1040;  Lewis 
v.  City  of  Shreveport,  108  U.  S.  287,  2  S.  Ct.  634,  27  L.  ed.  728;  Nor- 
ton v.  Shelby  County,  118  U.  S.  450,  6  S.  Ct.  1121,  30  L.  ed.  178; 
Wiley  v.  Silliman,    62  111.  170. 

4  66  Zane  v.  Hamilton  County,  189  U.  S.  370,  23  S.  Ct.  538,  47 
L.  ed.  858. 

467  Buffalo  etc.  E.  Co.  v.  Falconer,  103  U.  S.  821,  26  L.  ed.  471; 
List  v.  Wheeling,  7  W.  Va.  501;  Cumberland  etc.  Ey.  Co.  v.  Barren 
County  Court,  73  Ky.  604;  Wilson  v.  Polk  County,  112  Mo.  126,  20 
S.  W.  469;  Sharpless  v.  Philadelphia,  21  Pa.  St.  147,  59  Am.  Dec. 
759. 

468  Aspinwall  v.  Commissioners,  22  How.  377,  16  L.  ed.  296;  Wads- 
worth  v.  Supervisors,  102  U.  S.  536,  26  L.  ed.  221;  Norton  v.  Shelby 
County,  118  U.  S.  452,  6  S.  Ct.  1131,  30  L.  ed.  178. 

469  Covington  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Kenton,  12  B.  Mon.  144;  List  v.  Wheel- 
ing, 7  W.  Va.  501. 

Notes  on  Constitution — 21 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  322 

thorize  a  change  in  the  mode  of  paying  subscriptions,470  or  may 
confirm  a  subscription  not  made  in  pursuance  of  the  power 
conferred,471  or  may  provide  for  the  issue  of  the  stock  to  tax- 
payers in  proportion  to  their  taxes,472  or  may  provide  that  the 
filing  of  the  affidavit  of  consent  of  taxpayers  shall  be  conclusive 
evidence  of  such  consent,473  or  may  provide  for  the  registration 
and  certification  of  bonds  issued  in  aid  of  railroads.474  A  vote 
of  the  people  authorizing  such  subscription  does  not  constitute 
a  contract  until  the  subscription  is  actually  made,475  but  bonds 
once  issued  pursuant  to  a  subscription  are  ever  after  valid  and 
binding  on  the  body  issuing  them.476 

A  municipal  corporation  taking  stock  in  a  railroad  corpora- 
tion is  to  that  extent  a  private  corporation,  bound  as  a  private 
individual  by  its  obligation,  and  its  liability  is  subject  to  the 
constitutional  inhibition  ;477  and  where  a  municipality  has  made 
a  contract  to  subscribe  for  stock,  its  bonds  to  be  issued  when 
the  road  is  completed,  its  contract  cannot  be  impaired  by  a  sub- 
sequent constitutional  prohibition  against  municipal  aid.478 
Such  prohibitions  are  prospective  only,  and  do  not  revoke 
grants  of  aid  previously  made  and  in  force  at  the  time  of  their 

470  Louisville  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Davidson,  1  Sneed,  637;  Hunsaker  v. 
Borden,  5  Cal.  288,  63  Am.  Dec.  130. 

471  City  v.  Eailroad  Co.,  15  Conn.  475;  Bass  v.  Mayor,  38  Ga.  875; 
McMillan  v.  Boyles,  6  Iowa,  304;  Hannibal  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Marion,  36 
Mo.  294. 

472  Commissioners  v.  Lucas,  93  U.  S.  116,  23  L.  ed.  822. 

473  People  v.  Mitchell,  45  Barb.  208. 

474  Hoff  v.  Jasper  County,  110  U.  S.  53,  3  S.  Ct.  476,  28  L.  ed.  68. 

475  Cumberland  &  O.  Ey.  v.  Barren  County  Court,  73  Ky.  604; 
Wilson  v.  Polk  County,  112  Mo.  126,  20  S.  W.  469;  List  v.  Wheeling 
7  W.  Va.  501. 

476  Lee  v.  Bogers,  7  Wall.  181,  19  L.  ed.  160;  Lansing  v.  Muscatiirj 
County,  2  Abb.  U.  S.  59.  And  see  Butz  v.  City  of  Muscatine,  8  Wall. 
585,  19  L.  ed.  490. 

477  Broughton  v.  Pensacola,  93  U.  S.  269,  23  L.  ed.  896;  Port  of 
Mobile  v.  Watson,  116    U.  S.  305,  6  S.  Ct.  405,  29  L.  ed.  620. 

478  County  of  Moultrie  v.  Savings  Bank,  92  XJ.  S.  635,  23  L.  ed. 
63±;  County  of  Clay  v.  Society  for  Savings,  104  U.  S.  590,  26  L.  ed. 
856;  County  of  Moultrie  v.  Fairfield,  105  TJ.  S.  375,  26  L.  ed.  94o; 
Jonesboro  v.  Cairo  etc.  E,  E.,  110  U.  S.  197,  4  S.  Ct.  67,  28  L.  ed.  116. 


323  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

adoption.479  So  where  the  vote  on  a  subscription  to  corporate 
stock  was  had  and  the  subscription  made  prior  to  the  adoption 
of  the  prohibitory  clause  the  old  constitution  must  govern.4S0 
Where,  however,  the  subscription  is  ultra  vires,  it  creates 
no  valid  contract  rights  which  are  impaired  by  the  prohibitory 
amendment.481 

Contracts  Relating  to  Public  "Utilities  and  Improvements. 


A  franchise  granted  by  a  municipal  corporation  to  a  street 
railway  company  to  use  the  streets  of  the  city  is  a  contract 
within  the  protection  of  the  constitution,482  and  the  acceptance 
of  the  terms  of  an  ordinance  by  a  corporation,  followed  by  the 
expenditure  of  large  sums  of  money  on  the  faith  of  it,  gives 
the  corporation  contract  rights  which  the  legislature  cannot  im- 
pair.483 The  rule  applies  as  well  to  franchises  to  erect  and 
maintain  telephone  or  telegraph  lines,484  or  to  lay  pipes  in  city 
streets.485     Such  franchises,  when  accepted,  are  in  the  nature 

479  Scotland  County  v.  Thomas,  94  U.  S.  688,  24  L.  ed.  219;  County 
of  Macon  v.  Shores,  97  U.  S.  278,  24  L.  ed.  889;  County  of  Eay  v. 
Van  Sycle,  96  U.  S.  684,  24  L.  ed.  800;  Louisiana  v.  Taylor,  105  U. 
S.  458,  26  L.  ed.  1133;  State  v.  Lancaster  County,  6  Neb.  214; 
Indiana  County  v.  Agricultural  Society,  85  Pa.  St.  359;  Town  jf 
Cherry  Creek  v.  Becker,  123  N.  Y.  161,  25  N.  E.  369;  Bound  v.  Wis- 
consin Cent.  B.  E.,  45  Wis.  543. 

480  Decker  v.  Hughes,  63  111.  33. 

481  Buffalo  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Falconer,  103  U.  S.  826,  26  L.  ed.  471. 

482  Birmingham  etc.  St.  By.  v.  Birmingham  St.  By.,  79  Ala.  465, 
68  Am.  Eep.  615;  East  Louisiana  E.  Co.  v.  New  Orleans,  46  La. 
Ann.  526,  15  South.  157;  Springfield  By.  Co.  v.  Springfield,  85  Mo. 
674. 

483  Trustees  Dartmouth  College  v.  Woodward,  4  Wheat.  700,  4  L. 
ed.  629;  Citizens'  St.  Ey.  Co.  v.  City  Ey.  Co.,  56  Fed.  746;  People  v. 
Chicago  West.  Div.  Ey.  Co.,  18  111.  App.  125;  Hovelman  v.  Kansas 
City  Horse  Ey.,  79  Mo.  632;  State  ex  rel.  v.  Corrigan  etc.  Ey.  Co., 
85  Mo.  263,  55  Am.  Eep.  361. 

484  St.  Louis  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  148  U.  S.  103,  13  S.  Ct. 
485,  37  L.  ed.  380;  Sunset  Telephone  &  Telegraph  Co.  v.  Medford,  115 
Fed.  202;  City  of  New  Orleans  v.  Great  Southern  etc.  Co.,  40  La.  AnD. 
41,  3  South.  533;  Michigan  Tel.  Co.  v.  St.  Joseph,  121  Mich.  502, 
80  Am.  St.  Eep.  520,  80  N.  W.  383. 

485  Walla  Walla  v.  Walla  Walla  Water  Co.,  172  U.  S.  9,  19  S.  Ct. 
77,  43  L.  ed.  341;  State  v.  City  of  Toledo,  48  Ohio  St.  112,  26  N.  E. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  324 

of  legal  estates,486  and  if  valid  under  the  laws  of  the  state  at 
the  time  they  were  granted,  they  cannot  be  impaired  by  subse- 
quent legislation  or  judicial  decision.487  Where,  however,  in 
the  grant  of  authority  to  cities,  the  legislature  has  reserved  the 
right  to  impose  conditions  which  it  deems  necessary  for  the 
public  good,  the  holder  of  a  franchise  may  be  required  to  pave 
certain  portions  of  the  streets  where  its  rails  are  laid.488  So, 
also,  there  is  an  implication  in  all  franchises  that  they  shall 
be  held  subject  to  the  legislature's  police  power,  and  the  laying 
of  switches  and  sidetracks  in  streets  except  on  certain  condi- 
tions, may  be  forbidden,489  and  telegraph  and  telephone  com- 
panies may  be  required  to  place  their  wires  in  cities  under- 
ground.490 

Municipal  lighting  and  water  contracts  are  also  within  the 
protection  of  this  clause,  and  where  the  conditions  of  a  grant  of 
the  right  to  sell  water  or  light  have  been  complied  with  it  can- 
not be  revoked  or  impaired.491  Where,  however,  nothing  has 
been  done  toward  the  erection  and  operation  of  a  plant  under 
an  ordinance  there  is  no  contract  right  which  can  be  impaired 
by  a  subsequent  act  authorizing  the  city  to  erect  its  own 
plant.492     Where,  by  contract,   a  city  has  conferred  the  ex- 

1061,  11  L.  E.  A.  729;  Little  Falls  etc.  Co.  v.  City  of  Little  Falls,  102 
Fed.  663. 

486  Pennsylvania  College  Cases,  13  Wall.  212,  20  L.  ed.  550. 

487  Chicago  v.  Sheldon,  9  Wall.  55,  19  L.  ed.  594;  New  Orleans  etc. 
E.  E.  v.  Delamore,  114  U.  S.  510,  29  L.  ed.  244;  City  Ey.  v.  Citizens' 
E.  E.,  166  U.  S.  567,  17  S.  Ct.  653,  41  L.  ed.  1114;  Coast  Line  etc.  Co. 
v.  Savannah,  30  Fed.  650;  St.  Louis  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  63  Fed. 
70;  West  Chicago  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Chicago,  178  111.  344,  53  N.  E.  114;  West 
era  Paving  etc.  Co.  v.  Citizens'  etc.  E.  E.,  128  Ind.  529,  25  Am.  St. 
Eep.  465,  26  N.  E.  190,  10  L.  E.  A.  770. 

488  Sioux  City  etc.  Ey.  v.  City,  138  U.  S.  98,  11  S.  Ct.  226,  34  L. 
ed.  898,  affirming  78  Iowa,  367,  43  N.  W.  224;  Coast  Line  E.  E.  v. 
City  of  Savannah,  30  Fed.  646. 

489  Drady  v.  Des  Moines  etc.  Ey.,  57  Iowa,  393,  10  N.  W.  754. 

490  People  v.  Squires,  1  N.  Y.  St.  Eep.  633. 

491  Los  Angeles  v.  Los  Angeles  City  Water  Co.,  177  U.  S.  583,  20 
8.  Ct.  736,  44  L.  ed.  886;  St.  Paul  Gaslight  Co.  v.  St.  Paul,  181  U.  S. 
148,  21  S.  Ct.  575,  45  L.  ed.  788;  Walla  Walla  v.  Walla  Walla  Water 
Co.,  172  U.  S.  10,  19  S.  Ct.  77,  43  L.  ed.  341. 

492  Capital  City  Light  Co.  v.  Tallahassee,  186  U.  S.  410,  412,  22 
S.  Ct.  866,  46  L.  ed.  121. 


325  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

elusive  right  to  furnish  it  with  water  from  a  certain  source, 
there  is  no  constitutional  objection  to  the  subsequent  incorpora- 
tion of  a  company  authorized  to  supply  the  city  with  water 
from  another  source;493  and  though  a  city  and  a  gas  company 
have  legally  entered  into  a  lighting  contract,  the  legislature 
may  later  authorize  the  city  to  erect  its  own  lighting  plant.494 

A  city's  breach  of  an  exclusive  lighting  contract  is  not  within 
the  prohibition  of  the  obligation  clause;  in  case  of  a  breach  of 
such  a  contract  a  city  is  liable,  like  an  individual,  in  dam- 
ages.495 A  claim  of  immunity  from  legislative  control  of  rates 
to  be  charged  under  a  franchise  must  be  established  affirma- 
tively; such  immunity  cannot  be  presumed,496  but  where  such 
immunity  is  shown  it  cannot  be  violated,  notwithstanding  the 
act  complained  of  may  not  result  in  a  reduction  of  income.497 

The  contract  of  a  city  for  public  work,  such  as  the  construct- 
ing or  paving  of  streets,  cannot  be  impaired  by  legislative 
act.498  Accordingly  where  damage  to  land  caused  by  the  open- 
ing of  a  street  has  been  appraised  and  the  appraisal  confirmed, 
the  owner  has  a  contract  right  which  cannot  be  impaired  by 
the  repeal  of  the  law  authorizing  appraisal.499  Where,  how- 
ever, a  contractor  assents  to  the  suspension  of  a  public  work, 
the  city  has  no  contract  right  impaired  by  the  act  of  the  leg- 
islature ordering  the  work  stopped.500     An  act  relating  to  the 

493  Stein  v.  Bienville  Water  Supply  Co.,  141  TJ.  S.  80,  11  S.  Ct. 
892,  35  L.  ed.  622;  In  re  Brooklyn,  143  N.  Y.  614,  38  N.  E.  938,  26  L. 
E.  A.  270. 

494  Hamilton  etc.  Gas  Co.  v.  Hamilton,  146  TJ.  S.  268,  13  S.  Ct.  93, 
36  L.  ed.  963;  Thomas  v.  Grand  Junction,  13  Colo.  App.  88,  36  Pao. 
1120. 

495  Newport  Light  Co.  v.  Newport,  151  TJ.  S.  540,  14  S.  Ct.  429,  38 
L.  ed.  259. 

496  Spring  Valley  W.  W.  v.  Schottler,  110  TJ.  S.  355,  4  S.  Ct.  48, 
28  L.  ed.  173;  Covington  etc.  Co.  v.  Sanford,  164  U.  S.  578,  17  S.  Ct. 
198,  41  L.  ed.  560. 

497  Los  Angeles  v.  Los  Angeles  City  Water  Co.,  177  TJ.  S.  580,  20 
S.  Ct.  736,  44  L.  ed.  886. 

498  Goodale  v.  Fennel,  27  Ohio  St.  426,  22  Am.  Rep.  321;  Flewellin 
v.  Proetzel,  80  Tex.  191,  15  S.  W.  1043. 

499  People  v.  City  of  Buffalo,  140  N.  Y.  300,  37  Am.  St.  Rep.  563, 
35  N.  E.  485. 

500  Cleveland  v.  Board  of  Finance  etc.,  38  N.  J.  L.    259. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  326 

widening  of  a  street  and  authorizing  a  reappraisement  of  the 
damage  done  and  a  new  assessment  does  not  impair  any  con- 
tract rights;501  nor  is  an  act  authorizing  the  assessment  of 
abutting  land  for  the  construction  of  a  boulevard  an  impair- 
ment of  the  act  providing  for  the  compensation  of  owners  for 
land  taken.502 

Municipal  Debts  and  Liabilities. 


The  rights  of  a  municipality's  creditors  acquired  under  con- 
tracts valid  when  made  are  protected  by  the  federal  constitu- 
tion.503 So  where  a  judgment  has  been  rendered  against  a 
city,  the  legislature  cannot  impair  its  obligation  by  restricting 
the  power  of  the  city's  administrative  officers,504  and  an  act 
prohibiting  the  levy  of  taxes  to  pay  a  claim  against  a  city  is 
void  if  it  deprives  the  creditor  of  every  means  for  the  collection 
of  his  debt.505  A  statute  providing  another  and  different 
mode  of  payment  of  a  municipal  warrant  for  indebtedness 
other  than  that  provided  in  the  contract  is  void;506  e.  g.,  a  re- 
quirement that  holders  of  warrants  bearing  a  certain  rate  of 
interest  surrender  them  and  accept  bonds  bearing  a  less  rate 
of  interest.507  But  an  act  merely  imposing  conditions  which 
do  not  impair  the  creditor's  right,  such  as  a  requirement  that 
the  warrant  be  registered,  is  unobjectionable;508  but  conditions 
which  render  the  enforcement  of  a  claim  less  certain,  such  as 
a  requirement  that  warrants  shall  be  submitted  to  the  county 
judge  to  determine  their  validity,  cannot  retroact.509     Whether 

50i   Garrison  v.  City  of  New  York,  21  Wall.  196,  22  L.  ed.  612. 

502  Turner  v.  City  of  Detroit,  104  Mich.  326,  62  N.  W.  405. 

503  Murray  v.  Charleston,  96  U.  S.  443,  24  L.  ed.  760;  Shreveport 
v.  Cole,  129  U.  S.  42,  9  S.  Ct.  210,  32  L.  ed.  589;  National  Bank  v. 
Sebastian  County,  5  Dill.  416,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,040;  Garrett  v.  City 
of  Memphis,  5  Fed.  860;  Amy  v.  City  of  Galena,  7  Fed.  163. 

504  United  States  v.  Port  of  Mobile,  12  Fed.  768;  State  v.  Cathers, 
25  Neb.  250,  41  N.  W.  182;  Munday  v.  Assessors,  43  N.  J.  L.  338; 
State  v.  Butler,  79  Tenn.  493. 

505  Souter  v.  Madison,  15  Wis.  30;  Hammond  v.  Place,  116  Mich. 
628,  72  Am.  St.  Rep.  543,  74  N.  W.  1002. 

506  Rose  v.  Estudillo,  39  Cal.  270. 

507  Brewer  v.  Otoe  County,  1  Neb.  373. 

508  Louisiana  v.  New  Orleans,  102  U.  S.  203,  26  L.  ed.  132. 

509  McCracken  v.  Moody,  33  Ark.  81. 


327  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

the  legislature  can  require  that  holders  of  pre-existing  claims 
shall  present  them  for  record  within  a  limited  time  or  be  barred 
has  been  denied  in  some  states/10  and  affirmed  in  others.511 
Where  the  audit  of  claims  by  a  comptroller  is  merely  advisory, 
the  fact  that  he  is  precluded  from  auditing  certain  claims  by 
ordinance  does  not  impair  the  obligation  of  the  contract  under 
which  they  arose.512 

A  statute  exempting  the  property  of  a  municipal  corpora- 
tion from  forced  sale  on  execution  is  merely  in  affirmance  of 
the  common  law,513  and  if  no  rights  have  vested  under  a 
prior  statute  authorizing  execution,  such  an  exemption  is  valid. 
So  a  statute  providing  a  redemption  fund  to  meet  indebted- 
ness may  provide  for  the  preference  of  certain  claims.514 
Money  accumulated  and  set  apart  for  the  payment  of  claims 
cannot  be  diverted  under  an  act  of  the  legislature  authorizing 
its  use  for  another  purpose.515  Nor  can  the  lien  be  removed 
from  land  pledged  for  the  payment  of  a  claim.510  The  legis- 
lature may  alter  the  terms  of  a  municipal  charter  in  respect 
to  service  in  suits  on  pre-existing  obligations,517  and  it  may 
provide  that  claims  against  one  municipality  shall  be  paid 
by  another,518  but  it  cannot  provide  that  as  to  pre-existing 
claims  no  judgment  shall  issue  against  a  city.519     A  statute 

510  Robinson  v.  Magee,  9  Cal.  81,  70  Am.  Dec.  638;  Priestly  v. 
Watkins,  62  Miss.  798. 

511  City  of  Lincoln  v.  Grant,  38  Neb.  369,56  N.  W.  995;  Parker  v. 
Buckner,  67  Tex.  20,  2  S.  W.  746. 

512  St.  Paul  Gaslight  Co.  v.  St.  Paul,  181  IT.  S.  150,  21  S.  Ct.  575, 
45  L.  ed.  788. 

513  Gilman  v.  Contra  Costa  County,  8  Cal.  52,  68  Am.  Dec.  290. 

514  Harold  a-.  Herrington,  95  Ala.  395,  11  South.  131;  Youngs  v. 
Kail,  9  Nev.  212.     But  see  Bleakly  v.  Williams,  20  Pitts.  L.  J.  66. 

515  Maenhaut  v.  New  Orleans,  2  Woods,  108,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8939; 
Fazende  v.  City  of  Houston,  34  Fed.  95;  Board  of  Liquidators  ■». 
Municipality,  6  La.  Ann.  21;  Smith  v.  City  of  Appleton,  19  Was.  46S. 

516  Brooklyn  Park  Commrs.  v.  Armstrong,  45  N.  Y.  234,  6  Am. 
Eep.  70. 

517  Perkins  v.  Watertown,  5  Biss.  320,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,991. 

518  Rader  v.  S.  R.  Dist.,  6  Vroom,  273 

519  Gabler  v.  City  of  Elizabeih,  42  N.  J.  L.  79;  Wood  v.  New 
York,  29  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  463. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  op  Contracts.  328 

declaring  that  no  judgment  rendered  on  county  warrants  shall 
bear  interest  is  valid.520 

A  municipality  cannot,  by  its  own  ordinances  under  the 
guise  of  taxation,  relieve  itself  of  its  obligations;521  nor,  if  it 
obtain  a  loan  by  placing  property  in  the  hands  of  certain 
trustees  as  security,  can  it  make  a  change  in  the  selection  of 
the  trustees.522 

Municipal  Bonds. 

A  statute  authorizing  a  municipal  corporation  to  issue  bonds 
and  providing  for  the  levy  of  a  tax  to  pay  them  creates  a  con- 
tract,523 and  the  authorization  of  the  tax  must  continue  in 
force  during  the  life  of  the  bonds  issued  under  it.524  Nor  can 
the  legislature  revoke  the  incorporation  of  a  municipality  so 
as  to  defeat  the  rights  of  holders  of  its  bonds.525  If  a  fund 
is  pledged  for  the  redemption  of  bonds,  a  subsequent  statute 
cannot  authorize  its  diversion  so  as  to  impair  the  security  of 
the  bondholders.526     An  act  providing  for  the  redemption  of 

520  Reed  v.  Mississippi  County,  69  Ark.  365,  86  Am.  St.  Eep.  20  4, 
63  S.  W.  807. 

521  Murray  v.  Charleston,  96  U.  S.  448,  24  L.  ed.  760. 

522  West    Savings  Fund  v.  Philadelphia,  31  Pa.  St.  175. 

523  Maenhaut  v.  New  Orleans,  2  Woods,  108,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8939; 
Eanger  v.  New  Orleans,  2  Woods,  128,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,564. 

524  Von  Hoffman  v.  Quincy,  4  Wall.  554,  18  L.  ed.  403;  City  of 
Galena  v.  Amy,  5  Wall.  709,  18  L.  ed.  560;  Eiggs  v.  Johnson  County, 
6  Wall.  194,  18  L.  ed.  768;  Wolff  v.  New  Orleans,  103  U.  S.  365,  26 
L.  ed.  395;  Louisiana  v.  Pilsbury,  105  U.  S.  2SS,  26,  L.  ed. 
1090;  Ealls  County  Court  v.  United  States,  105  U.  S.  738,  26 
L.  ed.  1220;  Louisiana  v.  Police  Jury,  111  U.  S.  721,  4  S.  Ct.  648,  23 
L.  ed.  574;  Quincy  v.  Jackson,  113  U.  S.  338,  5  S.  Ct.  544,  28  L.  ed. 
1001;  Scotland  County  Court  v.  United  States,  140  U.  S.  47,  11  S. 
Ct.  697,  35  L.  ed.  351;  Port  of  Mobile  v.  Watson,  116  U.  S.  289,  6 
S.  Ct.  398,  29  L.  ed.  620. 

625  Milner  v.  Pensacola,  2  Woods,  632,  Fed  Cas.  No.  9619. 

526  Maenhaut  v.  City  of  New  Orleans,  2  Woods,  108,  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  8939;  State  v.  Board  of  Liquidation,  40  La.  Ann.  398,  4  South. 
122;  People  v.  Woods,  7  Cal.  579;  People  v.  Supervisors,  12  Cal.  300; 
People  v.  Bond,  10  Cal.  563;  English  v.  Supervisors,  10  Cal.  172; 
Board  v.  Fowler,  19  Cal.  11;  Trustees  v.  Bailey,  10  Fla.  112,  81  Am. 
Dec.  194;  West  Savings  Fund  v.  Philadelphia,  31  Pa.  St.  175; 
Smitn  v.  City  of  Appleton,  19  Wis.  4S8. 


329  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

bonds  at  less  than  par,  and  authorizing  a  loan  of  the  fund  if 
no  bonds  are  tendered  for  redemption,  is  void.527  A  statute 
authorizing  a  municipal  corporation  to  issue  bonds  does  not 
impair  the  obligation  of  the  contract  contained  in  a  grant  of 
land  to  individuals  by  the  state,528  and  if  a  statute  authoriz- 
ing the  condemnation  of  land  for  a  park  provides  that  the 
bonds  issued  shall  be  a  lien  thereon,  no  subsequent  act  can 
provide  for  a  sale  of  the  land  free  from  the  lien,  although  the 
proceeds  are  to  form  a  sinking  fund  for  the  use  of  the  bond- 
holders.529 An  act  prohibiting  the  issue  of  bonds  for  any  pur- 
pose but  the  one  specified  is  not  subject  to  repeal  or  amend- 
ment.530 A  statute  cannot  compel  a  party  to  surrender  the 
evidence  of  his  indebtedness  and  take  another  in  its  place.531 
Municipal  bonds  issued  by  authority  of  the  legisature  and 
upheld  as  valid  by  the  state  supreme  court  cannot  be  invali- 
dated either  by  a  subsequent  contrary  judicial  construction  or 
by  legislative  enactment.532  The  rights  of  bondholders  are  to 
be  determined  by  law  as  judicially  construed  at  the  time  the 
bonds  were  put  upon  the  market,533  and  bonds  valid  when  is- 
sued are  good  in  the  hands  of  an  assignee,  notwithstanding  the 
transfer  was  made  after  a  contrary  decision  by  the  state  su- 
preme court.534  The  legislature  may  validate  bonds  issued 
under  a  defect  of  power,535  unless  the  issue  was  absolutely  void 
and  incapable  of  any  ratification.536 

527  Goldsmith  v.  Brown,  5     Or.  418. 

528  McCoy  v.  Washington  County,  3  "Wall.  Jr.  381,  3  Phila.  290, 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  8731. 

629  Brooklyn  Park  v.  Armstrong,  45  N.  Y.  234,  6  Am.  Rep.  70. 

630  Smith  v.  Appleton,  19  Wis.  468. 

531  People  v.  Morse,  43  Cal.  535;  Rose  v.  Estudillo,  39  Cal.  270. 

532  Thomson  v.  Lee  County,  3  Wall.  331,  18  L.  ed.  177;  Taylor  v. 
Ypsilanti,  105  U.  S.  72,  26  L.  ed.  1008. 

533  County  of  Ralls  v.  Douglass,  105  U.  S.  732,  26  L.  ed.  957. 

534  New  Buffalo    v.  Iron  Co.,  105  U.  S.  75,  26  L.  ed.  1024. 

535  Grenada  v.  Brogden,  112  U.  S.  272,  5  S.  Ct.  125,  28  L.  ed.  704; 
Illinois  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  R.,  33  Fed.  71;  Erskine  v.  Steele  County, 
87  Fed.  631;  Los  Angeles  Water  Co.  v.  Los  Angeles,  88  Fed.  743; 
Kunkle  v.  Franklin,  13  Minn.  127,  97  Am.  Dec.  226;  Commonwealth 
V.  Folsom,  13  Minn.  219. 

536  Marsh  v.  Fulton  County,  10  Wall.  684,  19  L.  ed.  1040;  Lewis 
T.  City  of  Shreveport,  108  U.  S.  287,  2  S.  Ct.  634,  27  L.  ed.  728; 
Norton  v.  Shelby  County,  118  U.  S.  450,  6  S.  Ct.  1121,  30  L.  ed.  178. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  op  Contracts.  330 

Private   Corporations. 

If  the  foundation  of  a  corporation  is  private,  the  corporation 
itself  is  private,  notwithstanding  it  is  under  charter  from  the 
government,  and  no  matter  how  extensive  its  uses.537  A  cor- 
poration may  he  private  and  yet  its  charter  may  contain  provi- 
sions of  a  purely  public  character,538  and  a  bounty  may  he  be- 
stowed upon  a  private  as  well  as  a  public  corporation.539 

The  character  of  a  corporation  is  not  affected  by  the  fact 
that  it  is  largely  endowed  out  of  lands  granted  by  the  federal 
government,540  nor  by  the  fact  that  it  is  endowed  in  part  by 
the  state  creating  it.541  Where  the  property  of  a  corporation 
is  private,  it  is  a  private  corporation;542  but  where  the  whole 
interests  and  franchises  are  the  exclusive  property  and  domain 
of  the  government,  it  is  a  public  corporation.543  So  if  an 
educational  institution  be  founded  for  public  purposes  and 
with  public  funds,  it  is  public  and  subject  to  legislative  con- 

537  Trustee®  Dartmouth  College  v.  Woodward,  4  Wheat.  629,  4 
L.  ed.  629;  Louisville  v.  University,  15  B.  Mon.  669;  Allen  v.  McKean, 
1  Sum.  276,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  229;  Regents  v.  Williams,  9  Gill  &  J. 
365,  31  Am.  Dec.  72;  Trustees  v.  Bradbury,  11  Me.  118,  26  Am.  Dec. 
515;  Yarmouth  v.  North  Yarmouth,  34  Me.  411,  56  Am.  Dec.  666; 
People  v.  Cogswell,  113  Cal.  139,  45  Pac.  272,  35  L.  R.  A.  269;  Amer- 
ican Asylum  etc.  v.  Phoenix  Bank,  4  Conn.  177,  10  Am.  Dec.  113; 
State  v.  Neff,  52  Ohio  St.  404,  40  N.  E.  724,  28  L.  R.  A.  409;  Board 
of  Education  v.  Bakewell,  122  111.  344,  10  N.  E.  381;  Downing  v. 
Board,  129  Ind.  449,  28  N.  E.  125,  12  L.  R.  A.  664;  Plymouth  v.  Jack- 
son, 15  Pa.  St.  44;  State  v.  Hey  ward,  3  Rich.  389. 

538  Regents  v.  Williams,  9  Gill  &  J.  365,  31  Am.  Dec.  72. 

530  Allen  v.  McKean,  1  Sum.  276;  Louisville  v.  University,  15  B. 
Mnn.  642;  Regents  v.  Williams,  9  Gill  &  J.  365,  31  Am.  Dec.  72; 
Montgomery  Academy  v.  George,  14  La.  Ann.  395;  Sheriff  v.  Lowndes, 
16  Md.  357;  Richardson  v.  Brown,  6  Me.  355;  Yarmouth  v.  North 
Yarmouth,  34  Me.  411,  56  Am.  Dec.  666. 

540  University  v.  Indiana,  14  How.  276,  14  L.  ed.  416. 

54i  Downing  v.  Board  etc.,  129  Ind.  449,  28  N.  E.  125,  12  L.  R. 
A.  664;  Cleaveland  v.  Stewart,  3  Ga.  291. 

542  Piqua  State  Bank  v.  Knoop,  16  How.  360,  6  Ohio  St.  342  14 
L.  ed.  977. 

543  Trustees  Dartmouth  College  v.  Woodward,  4  Wheat.  629,  4  L. 
ed.  629;  Allen  v.  McKean,  1  Sum.  276,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  229;  Regents  v. 
Williams,  9  Gill  &  J.  365,  31  Am.  Dec.  72;  University  v.  Maultsby, 
8  Ired.  Eq.  257. 


331  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

trol;544  but  a  corporation  created  for  the  purpose  of  investing 
school  funds  for  a  town  has  been  held  to  be  a  private  corpora- 
tion.545 

Although  created  by  the  state,  a  bank  whose  stock  is  owned 
by  private  persons  is  a  private  corporation,  and  its  charter  pro- 
tected by  the  obligation  clause;546  but  it  has  been  held  that  a 
bank  operated  exclusively  by  the  state  is  public,  and  may  be 
discontinued  by  the  state  at  its  option.547  A  bank  charter 
may  be  forfeited  for  the  nonuser  of  its  franchises.548  Eailroad 
corporations  are  uniformly  held  to  be  private  although  their 
uses  are  essentially  public,549  and  their  character  is  unaffected 
by  the  fact  that  they  are  held  to  serve  a  public  use  for  the  pur- 
pose of  the  exercise  of  the  right  of  eminent  domain  in  their  be- 
half,530 or  for  the  purpose  of  extending  public  aid.551  Canal 
companies  are  of  the  same  nature,552  as  also  are  corporations 

544  Dart  v.  Houston,  22  Ga.  529;  University  of  Michigan  v.  Board 
of  Education,  4  Mich.  225;  State  v.  Knowles,  16  Fla.  616;  Eegents 
v.  McConnell,  5  Neb.  427;  Wambersie  v.  Orange  etc.  Society,  84  Va. 
453,  5  S.  E.  28;  Spaulding  v.  People,  172  111.  48,  49  N.  E.  995.  But 
see  State  v.  Carr,  111  Ind.  337,  12  N.  E.  319. 

545  Trustees  v.  Bradbury,  11  Me.  118,  26  Am.  Dec.  515. 

546  State  Bank  of  Ohio  v.  Knoop,  16  How.  380,  14  L.  ed.  977,  re- 
versing 1  Ohio  St.  618. 

547  State  v.  State  Bank  of  South  Carolina,  1  S.  C.  67;  State  v. 
Curran,  12  Ark.  353;  Branch  Bank  v.  Collins,  7  Ala.  101. 

548  State  v.  Bank  of  South  Carolina,  1  Spears,  502;  Logwood  v. 
Planters'  Bank,  Minor,  24. 

549  Adams  v.  Boston  etc.  B,  E.,  1  Holmes,  31,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  47; 
Sweatt  v.  Boston  etc.  E.  E.,  3  Cliff.  346,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,684;  Bur- 
hop  v.  Milwaukee,  21  Wis.  260;  Hale  v.  County  Commissioners,  137 
Mass.   114. 

550  Bonaparte  v.  Camden  etc.  E.  E.,  1  Baldw.  220,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
1617;  Bloodgood  v.  Mohawk  etc.  E.  E.,  18  Wend.  51,  21  Am.  Dec. 
348. 

551  Van  Hostruck  v.  Madison  City,  1  Wall.  296,  17  L.  ed.  538; 
Eogers  v.  Burlington,  3  Wall.  665,  18  L.  ed.  79;  Eailroad  Co.  v. 
County  of  Otoe,  16  Wall.  673,  21  L.  ed.  375;  Anderson  v.  Santa  Anna, 
116  U.  S.  363,  6  S.  Ct.  413,  29  L.  ed.  633. 

552  Bundle  v.  Delaware  etc.  Canal,  1  Wall.  Jr.  291,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
12,139;  Hooker  v.  New  Haven  etc.  Co.,  15  Conn.  322.  And  see  Tay- 
lor v.  Griswold,  14  N.  J.  L.    234,  27  Am.  Dee.  43. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1  Obligation  op  Contracts.       332 

engaged  in  slaughtering  livestock,553  industrial,  mining  and 
manufacturing  corporations.554  A  home  for  inebriates  estab- 
lished by  private  benefaction  is  a  private  corporation  although 
supported  in  part  by  the  state.555 

Nature  of  Corporate  Charter  and  Extent  of  Legislative 

Power. 

The  charter  of  a  private  corporation  is  a  contract,  which  the 
state,  under  the  inhibition  of  the  constitution,  cannot  im- 
pair.556 It  is  in  effect  a  stipulation  that  the  powers  specially 
granted  are  not  to  be  withdrawn  or  diminished.557 

Certain  powers  are  to  be  implied  from  those  specially 
given,558  and  powers  thus  reasonably  implied  are  as  sacred  as 
those  expressly   given.559     Private   charters   are   contracts   be- 

553  Putnam  v.  Ruch,  56  Fed.  418. 

554  Wolfe  v.  Underwood,  91  Ala.  526,  8  South.  775. 

555  Washington  Home   v.  Chicago,  157  111.  423,  41  N.  E.  895,  29 
L.  R.  A.  798. 

556  Trustees  Dartmouth  College  v.  Woodward,  4  Wheat.  627,  641, 
657,  4  L.  ed.  629;  West  River  Bridge  Co.  v.  Dix,  6  How.  531,  12 
L.  ed.  535;  Bridge  Props,  v.  Hoboken  Co.,  1  Wall.  146,  17  L.  ed.  571; 
Miller  v.  State,  15  Wall.  488,  21  L.  ed.  98;  The  Delaware  Railroad 
Tax,  18  Wall.  225,  21  L.  ed.  888;  Chicago  etc.  R.  R.  v.  Iowa,  94  U. 
S.  161,  24  L.  ed.  94;  Edwards  v.  Kearzey,  96  U.  S.  607,  24  L.  ed. 
793;  Fletcher  v.  Peck,  6  Cr.  87,  3  L.  ed.  162;  Terrett  v.  Taylor,  9 
Cr.  43,  3  L.  ed.  650;  Town  of  Pawlet  v.  Clark,  9  Cr.  292,  3  L.  ed. 
735;  Piqua  Bank  v.  Knoop,  16  How.  369,  14  L.  ed.  977;  Dodge  v. 
Woolsey,  18  How.  331,  15  L.  ed.  401;  Mechanics'  and  Traders'  Bank 
v.  Debolt,  18  How.  380,  15  L.  ed.  458;  Jefferson  etc.  Bank  v.  Skelly, 
1  Black,  436,  17  L.  ed.  173;  San  Francisco  v.  Spring  Valley  Water- 
works, 48  Cal.  520;  Washington  Br.  Co.  v.  State,  18  Conn.  64;  Bruf- 
fett  v.  Great  Western  R.  R.  Co.,  25  111.  312;  Martindale  v.  Moore, 
3  Blackf.  280;  Atlantic  R.  R.  v.  Mingus,  7  N.  Mex.  371,  34  Pac. 
595;  Matter  of  City  of  Brooklyn,  143  N.  Y.  609,  38  N.  E.  986,  26 
L.  R.  A.  270;  "University  v.  North  Carolina  R.  R.,  76  N.  C.  108,  22 
Am.  Rep.  674;  Central  R.  R.  v.  Collins,  40  Ga.  624;  State  Board  of 
Assessors  v.  Paterson  etc.  R,  R.  Co.,  50  N.  J.  L.  450,  14  Atl.  612; 
President  etc.  v.  Trenton  City  Bridge  Co.,  13  N.  J.  Eq.  49;  People  v. 
O'Brien,  111  N.  Y.  49,  7  Am.  St.  Rep.  702,  18  N.  E.  702,  2  L.  R.  A. 
255;  Brighton  v.  Wilkinson,  2  Allen,  29;  Crease  v.  Babcock,  23  Pick. 
340,  34  Am.  Dec.  63;  Mathews  v.  St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  Ry.,  121  Mo.  310, 
24  S.  W.  594,  25  L.  R.  A.  161;  Michigan  State  Bank  v.  Hastings,  1 
Doug.  225;  41   Am.  Dec.  549;   Mayor  v.  Baltimore  etc.  R.  R.,  6  Gill, 


333  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

cause  based  for  consideration  upon  the  liabilities  and  duties 
which  the  incorporators  assume  by  acceptance.560  The  consid- 
eration may  be  said  to  be  the  benefit  derived  by  the  community 
from  the  incorporation,561  and  of  its  sufficiency  the  legislature 
is  the  exclusive  judge.562  No  other  consideration  is  necessary 
to  render  the  grant  irrevocable.5628 

The  obligation  of  such  charters  on  the  part  of  the  incorpora- 
tors is  that  of  performing  the  functions  for  which  they  are 
created.563  A  corporate  charter,  like  any  other  grant  by  the 
state,  is  to  be  strictly  construed  in  favor  of  the  public  ;564  noth- 
ing can  be  taken  by  intendment  against  the  state.565  So  where 
the  right  under  a  charter  is  claimed  by  construction,  only  the 
scope  and  evident  design  of  all  of  the  provisions  of  the  charter 

288,  48  Am.  Dec.  531;  Kelhim  v.  State,  66  Ind.  577;  Eegents  v. 
Williams,  9  Gill  &  J.  365,  31  Am.  Dee.  72;  Derby  Turnpike  Co.  v. 
Parks,  10  Conn.  522,  27  Am.  Dee.  700. 

537  Commonwealth  v.  Farmers'  Bank,  38  Mass.  542,  32  Am.  Dec. 
290;  Thorpe  v.  Burlington  etc.  E.  E.,  27  Vt.  140,  62  Am.  Dec.  625. 

558  Payne  v.  Baldwin,  11  Miss.  661;  Commercial  Bank  v.  State, 
12  Miss.  439. 

559  Commercial  Bank  v.  State,  12  Miss.  439;  People  v.  Manhattan, 
Co.,  9  Wend.  351. 

560  Pennsylvania  College  Cases,  13  Wall.  214,  20  L.  ed.  550. 

561  Trustees  Dartmouth  College  v.  Woodward,  4  Wheat.  658,  4  L. 
ed.  629;  Home  of  the  Friendless  v.  Eouse,  8  Wall.  430,  19  L.  ed.  495; 
Eegents  v.  Williams,  9  Gill  &  J.  365,  31  Am.  Dec.  72. 

562  Piqua  Bank  v.  Knoop,  16  How.  369,  14  L.  ed.  977. 

562a  Derby  Turnpike  Co.  v.  Parks,  10  Conn.  522,  27  Am.  Dec.  700. 

563  Trustees  Dartmouth  College  v.  Woodward,  4  Wheat.  658,  688, 
4  L.  ed.  629;  Swift  v.  Eichardson,  7  Houst.  355,  32  Atl.  144;  Illinois 
etc.  E.  E.  v.  Bentley,  64  111.  441. 

564  Eailway  v.  Philadelphia,  101  U.  S.  540,  25  L.  ed.  912. 

565  Charles  Eiver  Br.  v.  Warren  Br.,  11  Pet.  544,  9  L.  ed.  773: 
Jefferson  Branch  Bank  v.  Skelly,  1  Black,  446,  17  L.  ed.  173;  The 
Binghampton  Br.,  3  Wall.  75,  18  L.  ed.  137;  Stein  v.  Bienville  Water 
Co.,  141  U.  S.  81,  11  S.  Ct.  896,  35  L.  ed.  622;  Coosaw  Min.  Co.  v. 
South  Carolina,  144  U.  S.  562,  12  S.  Ct.  691,  36  L.  ed.  537;  Coving- 
ton etc.  Co.  v.  Sandford,  164  U.  S.  588,  17  S.  Ct.  202,  41  L.  ed.  560; 
Parrott  v.  Lawrence,  2  Dill.  537,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,772;  Louisvilla 
Trust  Co.  v.  Cincinnati,  73  Fed.  726;  Bartholomew  v.  Austin,  85  Fed. 
364. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  33-i 

can  be  considered,566  and  where  the  charter  is  susceptible  of 
two  meanings,  that  which  is  least  detrimental  to  the  state  will 
be  adopted.567 

The  exercise  of  rights  under  a  charter,  being  restrictive  of 
individual  rights,  it  cannot  be  extended  beyond  the  letter  and 
spirit  of  the  act  of  incorporation.568 

A  corporate  franchise,  granted  to  and  accepted  by  a  private 
corporation,  is  in  the  nature  of  a  legal  estate  and  a  contract 
within  the  obligation  clause  of  the  constitution.569  The  grant 
of  a  franchise  is  not  distinguishable  from  a  grant  of  any  other 
property,570  and  an  ordinance  which  amounts  to  a  proposition 
to  grant  a  franchise  in  consideration  of  the  construction  or 
operation  of  a  street  railroad,  or  to  lay  gas  or  water  pipes  in 
streets,  is  a  contract  unimpairable  by  the  state;571  such  a 
franchise  having  been  granted  to  one  railroad  cannot  be  in  ef- 

566  Maysville  T.  Co.  v.  How,  14  B.  Mon.  26. 

567  The  Binghanrton  Br.,  3  Wall.  75,  18  L.  ed.  137. 

568  Providence  Bank  v.  Billings,  4  Pet.  514,  7  L.  ed.  939;  Charles 
Biver  Br.  v.  Warren  Br.,  11  Pet.  420,  9  L.  ed.  773;  Mills  v.  St. 
Clair  Co.,  8  How.  569,  12  L.  ed.  1201;  Planters'  Bank  v.  Sharp,  6 
How.  301,  12  L.  ed.  447;  Ohio  Trust  Co.  v.  Debolt,  16  How.  416,  14 
L.  ed.  997;  Eichmond  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Louisa.  E.  E.  Co.,  13  How.  71, 
14  L.  ed.  55;  Enfield  Br.  Co.  v.  Connecticut  Biver  Co.,  7  Conn.  28; 
Hartford  Br.  Co.  v.  East  Hartford,  16  Conn.  149;  Hartford  Br.  Co. 
v.  Union  Ferry  Co.,  29  Conn.  210;  McLeod  v.  Burroughs,  9  Ga.  213; 
Turnpike  Co.  v.  Eailroad  Co.,  10  Gill  &  J.  392;  Tuckahoe  Canal  Co. 
v.  Eailroad,  11  Leigh,  42,  36  Am.  Dec.  374;  Collins  v.  Sherman,  31 
Miss.  679. 

569  Pennsylvania  College  Cases,  13  Wall.  212,  20  L.  ed.  550;  Ne* 
Orleans  etc.  E,  E.  v.  Delamore,  114  U.  S.  510,  29  L.  ed.  244;  St. 
Louis  v.  Western  Uuion  Tel.  Co.,  148  TJ.  S.  103,  13  S.  Ct.  485,  37 
L.  ed.  380;  Walla  Walla  v.  Walla  Walla  Water  Co.,  172  TJ.  S.  9,  Id 
S.  Ct.  77,  43  L.  ed.  341. 

570  Trustees  Dartmouth  College  v.  Woodward,  4  Wheat.  700,  4  L. 
ed.  629;  Society  for  Savings  v.  Coite,  6  Wall.  606,  18  L.  ed.  897; 
Benson  v.  New  York,  10  Barb.  223;  Enfield  Bridge  Co.  v.  Connecticut 
Eiv.  Co.,  7  Conn.  28;  Derby  Turnpike  Co.  v.  Parks,  10  Conn.  28  27 
Am.  Dec.  700;  Washington  Bridge  Co.  v.  State,  18  Conn.  53;  Canal 
Co.  v.  Eailroad  Co.,  4  Gill  &  J.   1. 

571  City  Eailway  v.  Citizens'  Eailroad,  166  TJ.  S.  567,  17  S.  Ct. 
653,  41  L.  ed.  1114;  Walla  Walla  v.  Walla  Walla  Water  Co.,  172  TJ. 
S.  9,  19  S.  Ct.  77,  43  L.  ed.  341. 


335  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

feet  repealed  by  a  subsequent  grant  of  the  same  privilege  to 
another  corporation.572 

'  Exclusive  rights  granted  to  corporations  inconsistent  with 
the  new  government  may,  however,  be  abolished.573  Accord- 
ingly the  exclusive  right  granted  to  a  turnpike  company  to 
erect  and  maintain  a  toll  bridge"  was  not  impaired  by  a  grant 
of  a  right  seventy  years  later  to  a  railroad  company  to  erect  a 
railroad  bridge.574  A  statute  forbidding  the  erection  of  a 
bridge  near  one  already  built  gives  no  contract  rights  to  the 
owners  of  the  latter,  and  may  be  repealed  notwithstanding  its 
purchase  on  the  faith  of  such  statute;575  nor  is  a  ferry  license 
granted  under  general  law,  prohibiting  the  grant  of  a  license 
for  a  ferry  within  half  a  mile  of  any  other  ferry,  a  contract 
impaired  by  a  special  law  granting  a  license  for  a  ferry  within 
that  limit.576 

Where  a  corporation  is  to  be  brought  into  existence  by  some 
future  act  of  the  incorporators,  the  franchises  remain  in  abey- 
ance and  attach  when  such  acts  are  done.577 

Extent  of  Legislative  Authority. 

Corporations  are  impliedly  subject  to  such  reasonable  regu- 
lations as  the  legislature  may  from  time  to  time  prescribe,  not 
interfering  with  the  substantial  enjoyment  of  privileges  con- 
ferred and  serving  only  to  secure  the  ends  for  which  the  cor- 
porations were  created;578  a  corporation  always  impliedly  sub- 
jects itself  to  reasonable  regulations  in  the  conduct  of  its  af- 

572  New  Orleans  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Delamore,  114  U.  S.  510,  5  S.  Ct. 
1009,  29  L.  ed.  244. 

573  Terrett  v.  Taylor,  9  Cr.  52,  3  L.  ed.  650. 

574  Bridge  Proprietors  v.  Hoboken  Co.,  1  Wall.  147,  17  L.  ed.  571. 

575  Wheeling  etc.  Bridge  Co.  v.  Wheeling  Bridge  Co.,  138  U.  S. 
192,  11  S.  Ct.  301,  34  L.  ed.  967. 

576  Williams  v.  Wingo,  171  U.  S.  604,  20  S.  Ct.  793,  44  L.  ed.  905. 

577  Trustees  Dartmouth  College  v.  Woodward,  4  Wheat.  691,  4  L. 
ed.  629;  Vincennes  University  v.  State,  14  How.  275,  14  L.  ed.  416; 
Williams  v.  State,  23  Tex.  287;  Huff  v.  Winona  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  11 
Minn.  192. 

578  Chicago  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Needles,  113  U.  S.  580,  5  S.  Ct.  681, 
28  L.  ed.  1084;  Wabash  etc.  Ey.  v.  Illinois,  118  U.  S.  569,  7  S.  Ct. 
4,  30  L.  ed.  244. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  336 

fairs.579  The  legislature  has  the  same  right  of  general  con- 
trol over  corporations  that  it  has  over  natural  persons.580 
While  a  general  law  for  the  organization  of  corporations  is  a 
special  act  as  to  each  corporation  organized  under  it,581  yet 
provisions  in  acts  of  incorporation  which  are  of  general  law 
and  not  of  contract  may  be  repealed  or  modified,582  and  in  the 
absence  of  express  charter  provision  the  state  may  prescribe  the 
future  liabilities  of  its  corporations.583  The  legislature  may 
require  corporations  to  make  annual  reports,584  or  may  require 
a  certain  proportion  of  its  officers  to  reside  in  the  state,585  or 
may  change  the  mode  of  assessing  corporate  property.586 

A  corporation  which  is  a  mere  instrument  or  agent  of  the 
state  is  subject  to  legislative  control;587  but  the  legislature 
cannot  subject  a  corporation  to  forfeiture  of  its  franchises  for 
any  cause  not  sufficient  when  such  corporation  was  organ- 
ized.588    A    state  may   revive  a  corporation   and  legalize  con- 

579  Eagle  Ins.  Co.  v.  Ohio,  153  IJ.  S.  455,  14  S.  Ct.  868,  38  L.  ed. 
778. 

580  Benson  v.  New  York,  10  Barb.  223;  Galena  etc.  B.  B.  Co.  v. 
Loonids,  13  111.  548,  56  Am.  Dec.  471;  Ohio  etc.  B.  B.  v.  McClelland, 

25  111.  140;  Fertilizing  Co.  v.  Hyde  Park,  70  111.  634;  New  Albany 
etc.  B.  B.  v.  Tilton,  12  Ind.  3,  74  Aim.  Dec.  195;  Gorman  v.  Pacific 
B.  B.,  26  Mo.  441,  72  Am.  Dec.  220;  Burlington  etc.  B.  E.  v.  State, 
32  N.  H.  215;  State  v.  Matthews,  3  Jones  N.  C.  451;  Thorpe  v.  But- 
land  etc.  B.  E.  Co.,  27  Vt.  140,  62  Am.  Dec.  625. 

581  Piqua  Bank  v.  Knoop,  16  How.  369,  14  L.  ed.  977,  6  Ohio 
St.  342. 

582  People  v.  Cook,  148  U.  S.  408,  13  S.  Ct.  645,  37  L.  ed.  498. 

583  Missouri  etc.  Ey.  v.  Mackey,  127  U.  S.  208,  8  S.  Ct.  1161,  32 
L.  ed.  107;  Orient  Ins.  Co.  v.  Daggs,  172  U.  S.  566,  19  S.  Ct.  564,  43 
L.  ed.  552;  State  v.  Brown  etc.  Mfg  Co.,  18  E.  I.  20,  25  Atl.  248, 
17  L.  E.  A.  856. 

584  State  v.  Southern  Pacific  E.  E.,  24  Tex.  80. 

585  State  v.  Southern  Pacific  E.  E.,  24  Tex.  80. 

586  Bank  v.  Hamilton,  21  111.  33. 

587  Louisville  v.  University,  15  B.  Mon.  642;  Lincoln  Bank  v. 
Eichardson,  1  Me.  79,  10  Am.  Dec.  34;  Bleakney  v.  Farmers'  Bank, 
17  Serg.  &  B.  64,  17  Am.  Dec.  635;   Officer  v.  Young,  5  Yerg.  320, 

26  Am.  Dec,  268. 

588  State  v.  Tombeckbee  Bank,  2  Stew.  30. 


337  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

tracts  made  by  it  after  the  forfeiture  of  its  charter,  or  it  may 
transfer  the  property  of  an  insolvent  corporation  to  a  new 
one,589  and  may  provide  for  a  receiver  upon  the  dissolution  of  a 
corporation.590 

The  dissolution  of  a  corporation,  and  the  assignment  of  its 
property,  do  not  impair  the  corporate  contracts  or  defeat  judg- 
ment creditors*  equitable  right  to  satisfaction  out  of  the  cor- 
porate property.591 

An  act  which  impairs  the  charter  by  enlarging  the  powers  of 
the  state  over  the  body  corporate,  or  by  abridging  the  fran- 
chise, or  by  altering  the  charter,  is  void.592  An  act  passed, 
after  the  grant  of  the  charter,  annexing  a  cause  of  forfeiture 
unknown  to  the  charter,  impairs  its  obligation  and  is  void.593 
The  grant  of  an  annual  appropriation  in  a  charter,  in  consid- 
eration of  subscriptions  by  private  individuals,  is  a  valid  con- 
tract and  cannot  be  repealed.594  If  the  charter  allows  a  rea- 
sonable time  to  comply  with  the  conditions  whereby  a  corpora- 
tion may  obtain  an  interest  in  land,  the  legislature  cannot 
shorten  that  time  or  impose  any  liability  if  it  choose  to  avail 
itself  of  all  the  time  allowed.595 

The  right  of  a  corporation  to  regulate  its  own  charges  and 

5S9  Mudge  v.  Commissioners,  10  Eob.  (La.)  460. 

590  Carey  v.  Giles,  9  Ga.  253;  Searcey  v.  Stubbs,  12  Ga.  437;  Hall 
v.  Carey,  5  Ga.  253;  Aurora  T.  Co.  v.  Holthouse,  7  Ind.  59;  Read  v. 
Frankfort  Bank,  23  Me.  318;  Savings  Institution  v.  Maken,  23  Me. 
360;  Leathers  v.  Shipbuilders'  Bank,  40  Me.  386;  Nevitt  v.  Bank, 
14  Miss.  513;  Suydam  v.  Receivers,  3  N.  J.  Eq.  313;  Bank  of  Colum- 
bia v.  Attorney  General,  3  Wend.  588. 

591  Mumma  v.  Potomac  Co.,  8  Pet.  2S6,  8  L.  ed.  945;  Curran  v. 
Arkansas,  15  How.  308,  14  L.  ed.  705;  Bacon  v.  Robertson,  18  How. 
486,  15  L.  ed.  499;  Chicago  etc.  K.  R.  v.  Howard.  7  Wall.  410,  19  L. 
ed.  117;  Mellen  v.  Moline  Iron  Works,  131  U.  S.  366,  9  S.  Ct.  785, 
33  L.  Ed.  17S;  Hayden  v.  Thompson,  71  Fed.  63. 

592  Philadelphia  etc.  R.  R.  v.  Bowers,  4  Houst.  506;  Commercial 
Bank  v.  State,  12  Miss.  439. 

593  Washington  Bridge  Co.  v.  State,  18  Conn.  53;  People  v.  Plank- 
road  Co.,  9  Mich.  2S5;  Aurora  T.  Co.  v.  Holthouse,  7  Ind.  59;  State 
v.  Tombeckbee  Bank,  2  Stew.  30. 

594  Visitors  v.  State,  15  Md.  330. 

595  Nichols  v.  S.  &  K.  R.  R.  Co.,  43  Me.  356. 

Notes  on  Constitution — 22 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  338 

tolls  may  be  given  by  charter  in  such  terms  as  to  constitute  a 
contract  which  the  legislature  cannot  impair;596  but  a  claim 
of  immunity  from  legislative  control  of  tolls  and  charges  to  be 
exacted  is  subject  to  the  same  principles  of  construction  as  a 
grant  of  immunity  from  taxation,  and  will  never  be  pre- 
sumed.597 The  power  of  the  state  to  limit  the  amount  of 
charges  by  quasi-public  corporations  is  a  governmental  power, 
and  cannot  be  bargained  away  except  by  words  of  positive 
grant  or  their  equivalent.598  The  simple  grant  of  a  right  to 
take  tolls  does  not  amount  to  a  contract  that  the  state  shall 
thereafter  refrain  from  regulating  the  tolls  to  be  taken,599  nor 
does  a  provision  that  rates  to  be  charged  shall  never  exceed  a 
certain  figure  amount  to  a  contract  by  the  state  with  the  cor- 
poration that  the  legal  rate  shall  never  be  reduced  below  that 
amount.600  Even  where  a  charter  gives  the  absolute  right  to 
regulate  charges,  the  state  may  empower  a  commission  to  see  that 
the  corporation  keeps  within  its  charter  powers  and  to  prevent 
unjust  discrimination.001  A  charter  authorizing  the  directors 
to  "adopt  and  establish  such  a  tariff  of  charges  as  they  may 

596  Los  Angeles  v.  Los  Angeles  City  Water  Co.,  177  U.  S.  580,  20 
S.  Ct.  736,  44  L.  ed.  886;  Santa  Ana  Water  Co.  v.  Town  of  San 
Buenaventura,  65  Fed.  339;  Cleveland  Gaslight  etc.  Co.  v.  Cleve- 
land, 71  Fed.  610;  State  v.  Laclede  Gas  Co.,  102  Mo.  472,  22  Am. 
St.  Rep.  789,  14  S.  W.  974;  Philadelphia  etc.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Bowers,  4 
Houst.  506;  Hamilton  v.  Keith,  68  Ky.  458;  Attorney  General  v. 
Chicago  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  35  Wis.  42-5. 

597  Covington  etc.  Co.  v.  Sandford,  164  U.  S.  578,  17  S.  Ct.  193, 
41  L.  ed.  560. 

598  Stone  v.  Farmers'  Loan  &  Trust  Co.,  116  U.  S.  325,  6  S.  Ct. 
334,  29  L.  ed.  636;  Winchester  etc.  Road  Co.  v.  Croxton,  98  Ky.  744, 
34  S.  W.  '520;  State  v.  Cleveland  Gaslight  Co.,  3  Ohio  C.  C.  254j 
Burlington  etc.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Dey,  82  Iowa,  312,  31  Am.  St.  Kep.  477, 
48  N.  W.  98,  12  L.  R.  A.  436;  Blake  v.  Winona  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  id 
Minn.  418,  18  Am.  Rep.  345. 

599  Chicago  etc.  Ry.  v.  Minnes-ota,  134  U.  S.  418,  10  S.  Ct.  462,  33 
L.  ed.  970;  Minneapolis  etc.  Ry.  v.  Minnesota,  134  U.  S.  467,  10 
S.  Ct.  473,  33  L.  ed.  985;  Kuggles  v.  People,  91  111.  256;  Blake  v. 
Winona  etc.  R.  R.,  19  Minn.  418,  18  Am.  Rep.  345. 

eoo  Georgia  R.  R.  ete.  Co.  v.  Smith,  138  U.  S.  174.  9  S.  Ct.  47,  32 
L.  ed.  377;  Winchester  etc.  Road  Co.  v.  Croxton,  98  Ky.  739,  34  3. 
W.  518;  Dow  v.  Beidelman,  49  Ark.  325,  5  S.  W.  297. 

601  Stone  v.  Yazoo  etc.  E.  K.  Co.,  62  Miss.  607,  52  Am.  Rep.  193. 


339  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

think  proper  and  the  same  to  alter  and  change  at  pleasure/'  is 
not  an  adequate  surrender  of  the  state's  right  of  control.602 
Power  given  to  a  corporation  to  charge  "such  reasonable  rates 
as  may  be  from  time  to  time  fixed  by  such  corporation,  or  pre- 
scribed by  law/*'  is  not  a  contract  power  excluding  all  regula- 
tion by  the  legislature,603  and  a  proviso  that  a  corporation 
"may  make  such  by-laws  as  may  be  expedient,  not  repugnant 
to  the  laws  of  the  state/'  includes  laws  thereafter  to  be 
passed.604  Where  the  charter  itself,  or  the  state  constitution 
in  force  when  the  charter  was  granted,  reserves  to  the  legisla- 
ture power  to  alter  or  repeal  there  can  be  no  question  of  the  leg- 
islative power  over  rates  notwithstanding  the  other  terms  of 
the  charter,605  and  the  fact  that  the  legislature  does  not  exer- 
cise this  reserved  power  for  twenty  years  after  granting  the 
charter  does  not  impair  the  power;  the  powers  of  government 
cannot  be  lost  by  nonuser.606  AYhere  the  charter  of  a  turnpike 
company  authorizes  it  to  collect  toll  from  all  persons  without 
exception,  a  subsequent  act  exempting  certain  classes  is  uncon- 
stitutional.607 

The  legislature  cannot  contravene  any  of  the  positive  provi- 
sions of  a  corporate  charter,608  nor  can  it  impair  rights  there- 
under unless  it  provides  indemnity.609  Any  variation  in  the 
grant  of  a  franchise  violates  a  contractual  obligation,610  but 
mere  endowments  of  existence  are  not  contractual;  they  are 

602  Stone  v.  Illinois  Cent.  By.  Co.,  116  U.  S.  347,  6  S.  Ct.  348,  29 
L.  ed.  650. 

603  Chicago  etc.  Ey.  v.  Minnesota,  134  U.  S.  455,  10  S.  Ct.  462,  33 
L.  ed.  970;  Cotting  v.  Kansas  City  Stockyard  Co.,  79  Fed.  682;  Well- 
man  v.  Chicago  etc.  By.,  83  Mich.  611,  47  N.  W.  494. 

604  Chicago  etc.  Ey.  Co.  v.  Jones,  149  111.  361,  41  Am.  St.  Eep.  278, 
37  N.  E.  247,  24  L.  E.  A.  141. 

605  Peik  v.  Chicago  etc.  Ey.,  94  TJ.  S.  176,  24  L.  ed.  97;  Eailroad 
Commission  Cases,  116  U.  S.  325,  6  S.  Ct.  342,  29  L.  ed.  636. 

606  Chicago  etc.  Ey.  v.  Iowa,  94  U.  S.  162,  24  L.  ed.  94. 

607  Hartman  v.  Be<?htel,  1  Woodw.  Dee.  32;  Philadelphia  etc.  Co. 
v.  Gartland,  6  Phila.  128;  Pingry  v.  Washburn,  1  Adk.  264,  15  Am. 
Dec.  676. 

608  State  v.  Noyes,  47  Me.  189. 

609  Enfield  Br.   Co.  v.  Connecticut  Eiver  Co.,  7  Conn.   28. 

610  Enfield  Bridge   Co.   v.  Connecticut  Eiver   Co.,  7  Conn.  38. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  340 

held  subject  to  the  legislative  power  to  modify  or  revoke.611 
The  legislature  may  reserve  the  right  to  amend,  alter  or  repeal 
a  franchise.012  The  right  to  withdraw  a  franchise  includes 
every  power  or  privilege  which  is  a  part  of  the  franchise.013 

Construction  of  Powers  Granted. 

Any  privileges  which  may  exempt  a  corporation  from  the 
burdens  common  to  individuals  do  not  now  necessarily  from 
the  charter,  but  must  be  expressed  in  it  or  they  do  not  exist,014 
and  while  it  is  true  that  in  construing  a  charter  the  court 
must  carry  out  the  intention  of  the  legislature,615  and  sustain 
the  charter  where  there  is  no  ambiguity  in  the  language 
used,616  yet  where  there  is  any  uncertainty  as  to  the  legislative 
intention  the  doubt  is  to  be  resolved  in  favor  of  the  state.617 
This  is  especially  true  where  the  right  claimed  under  the 
charter  tends  to  impair  the  state's  power  to  exercise  its  ordi- 

611  Bank  v.  Hamilton,  21   111.   53. 

612  Beer  Co.  v.  Massachusetts,  97  U.  S.  25,  24  L.  ed.  989;  Peik 
v.  Chicago  etc.  E.  E.,  6  Bis®.  181,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,138;  Griffin  v.  Ken- 
tucky Ins.  Co.,  3  Bush,  592,  96  Am.  Dec.  259;  Commonwealth  v. 
Fayette  Co.  E.  E.  Co.,  55  Pa.  St.  452;  Butler  v.  Walker,  80  111.  345; 
Trustees  v.  Winston,  5  Stew.  &  P.  17. 

613  Central  E.  E.  &  B.  Co.  v.  Georgia,  54  Ga.  420. 

614  Providence  Bank  v.  Billings,  4  Pet.  562,  7  L.  ed.  939;  Bank 
V.  Hamilton,  21  111.  53;  Peters  v.  Railroad  Co.,  23  Mo.  107;  Thorpe 
v.  Rutland  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  27  Vt.  140,  62  Am.  Dec.  625. 

015  Washington  University  v.  Rouse,  8  Wall.  440,  19  L.  ed.  498; 
Janies  v.  Milwaukee,  16  Wall.  161,  21  L.  ed.  267;  New  Orleans  v. 
Houston,  119  U.  S.  278,  7  S.  Ct.  198,  30  L.  ed.  411;  Lewis  v.  Shreve 
port,  'A  Woods,  212,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8331. 

616  The  Binghamton  Bridge,  3  Wall.  75-80,  18  L.  ed.  137;  Euggles 
v.  Illinois,  108  U.  S.  534,  2  S.  Ct.  832,  27  L.  ed.  812;  Johnson  v. 
State,  88  Ala.  180,  7  South.  254;  Grant  v.  Leach,  20  La.  Ann.  331, 
96  Am.  Dec.  406. 

617  The  Binghamton  Bridge,  3  Wall.  75,  18  L.  ed.  137;  Stein  v. 
Bienville  Water  Supply  Co.,  141  U.  S.  81,  11  S.  Ct.  896,  35  L.  ed. 
622;  Coosaw  Min.  Co.  v.  South  Carolina,  144  U.  S.  562,  12  S.  Ct. 
691,  36  L.  e.l.  537;  Louisville  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Kentucky,  161  V.  S. 
6S5.  16  S.  Ct.  714,  40  L.  ed.  849;  Covington  etc.  Turnpike  Co.  v. 
Sandford,  164  U.  S.  588,  17  S.  Ct.  202,  41  L.  ed.  560;  Parrott  v.  Law- 
rence,  2  Dill.  337,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,772;  Superior  v.  Norton,  63  Fed. 
359;  Bartholomew  v.  Austin,  85  Fed.  364. 


841  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

nary  governmental  functions.018  Accordingly  the  relinquish- 
ment of  any  sovereign  power  must  be  plain  and  unequivocal; 
it  is  never  to  be  presumed.619 

The  state  grant  of  a  charter  is  a  contract;  but  ail  contracts 
are  made  subject  to  the  right  of  eminent  domain,620  and  the 

618  Charles  River  Bridge  v.  Warren  Bridge,  11  Pet.  544,  9  L.  ed. 
773;  Ohio  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Debolt,  16  How.  435,  14  L.  ed.  797;  Curtis 
v.  County  of  Butler,  24  How.  448,  16  L.  ed.  745;  Pearsall  v.  Great 
Northern  Ey.  Co.,  161  U.  S.  664,  16  S.  Ct.  705,  40  L.  ed.  83S;  New 
Orleans  v.  Texas  etc.  Ey.  Co.,  171  IT.  S.  343,  18  S.  Ct.  875,  18  L.  ed. 
178;  Minneapolis  etc.  Ey.  Co.  v.  Gardner,  177  U.  S.  332,  20  S.  Ct. 
656,  44  L.  ed.  793. 

618  Providence  Bank  v.  Billings.  4  Pet.  562,  7  L.  ed.  939;  Charles 
River  Bridge  v.  Warren  Bridge,  11  Pet.  544,  9  L.  ed.  773;  Holyoke 
Co.  v.  Lyman,  15  Wall.  512,  21  L.  ed.  133;  Fertilizing  Co.  v.  Hyda 
Park,  97  U.  S.  666,  24  L.  ed.  1036;  Delaware  R.  R.  Tax,  18  Wall. 
206,  21  L.  ed.  888;  Pennsylvania  R.  R.  v.  Miller,  132  U.  S.  84,  10 
S.  Ct.  37,  33  L.  ed.  '267;  Fall  v.  Sutter  County,  21  Cal.  252;  Georgi.i 
R.  R.  v.  Smith,  70  Ga.  700;  Pingree  v.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  R.,  118  Mich. 
329,  76  N.  W.  640,  53  L.  R.  A.  274;  Attorney  General  v.  Jamaica  etc. 
Aqueduct,  133  Mass.  366;  Providence  etc.  R.  R.,  Petitioner,  17  TJ. 
I.  344,  21  Atl.  965;  Memphis  etc.  R.  R.  v.  Berry,  41  Ark.  445;  State 
v.  Board  of  Assessors,  34.  La.  Ann.  575;  Dennis  v.  Railroad  Co.,  34 
La.  Ann.  956;  Wyandotte  v.  Corrigan,  35  Kan.  24,  10  Pac.  101; 
Springfield  v.  Smith,  138  Mo.  655,  60  Am.  St.  Rep.  574,  40  S.  W.  759, 
37  L.  R.  A.  446;  Snell  v.  Chicago,  133  111.  440,  24  N.  E.  537,  8  L. 
R.  A.  858;  Rockland  Water  Co.  v.  Water  Co.,  80  Me.  563,  15  Atl. 
788,  1  L.  R.  A.  388;  Davis  v.  Log-Driving  Co.,  82  Me.  350,  19  Atl. 
829;  Watson  Seminary  v.  County  Court,  149  Mo.  70,  50  S.  W.  883, 
45  L.  R.  A.  675;  Gas  Co.  v.  Parkersburg,  30  W.  Va.  439,  4  S.  E.  652. 

620  West  River  Bridge  Co.  v.  Dix,  6  How.  548,  12  L.  ed.  535;  Rich- 
mond R.  R.  Co.  v.  Louisiana  R.  R.  Co.,  13  How.  71,  14  L.  ed.  55; 
Bundle  v.  Delaware  etc.  Co.,  14  How.  80,  14  L.  ed.  335;  Long  Island 
Water  Supply  Co.  v.  Brooklyn,  166  U.  S.  69,  17  S.  Ct.  721,  41  L. 
ed.  1165;  Enfield  Bridge  Co.  v.  Eailroad  Co.,  17  Conn.  454;  Shorter  v. 
Smith,  9  Ga.  517;  James  Eiver  Co.  v.  Thompson,  3  Gratt.  270;  Mills 
v.  St.  Clair  Co.,  2  Gilm.  197;  Newcastle  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Peru  etc. 
E.  R,  Co.,  3  Ind.  464;  Boston  Wat.  Eev.  Co.  v.  Eailroad,  40  Mass. 
360;  Boston  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Salem  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  68  Mass.  1;  Cen- 
tral Bridge  v.  Lowell,  70  Mass.  474;  Piscataqua  Bridge  v.  N.  H. 
Bridge  Co.,  7  N.  H.  35;  Barber  v.  Andover,  8  N.  H.  39S;  Norther  i 
R.  R.  v.  Concord  R.  R.,  27  N.  H.  183;  Crosby  v.  Hanover,  36  N.  H. 
404;  Red  River  Bridge  Co.  v.  Clarksville,  1  Sneed,  176,  60  Am.  Dec. 
143;  State  v.  Delesdernier,  7  Tex.  99;  Armington  v.  Barnet,  15  Vt. 
745. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  342 

exercise  of  the  power  of  eminent  domain  is  not  a  revocation  of 
the  grant  contained  in  a  charter.021  The  taking  of  property 
acquired  under  a  charter  contract  does  not  impair  the  obliga- 
tion of  the  contract;  it  merely  appropriates  the  property  as 
any  other  property  to  public  use.022  There  is  nothing  in  the 
charter  of  a  corporation  which  prevents  the  taking  of  its  prop- 
erty for  public  use,623  provided  compensation  be  made,624  even 
though  the  powers  of  the  corporation  are  thereby  suspended  or 
the  corporation  actually  dissolved.025 

A  state  cannot  bargain  away  its  power  of  eminent  domain, 
and  a  statute  attempting  to  do  so  would  be  void.626  The  power 
extends  to  the  condemnation  of  corporate  property  for  street 
purposes,627  and  to  the  taking  of  corporate  franchises  and 
stock.6 2S  A  franchise  to  build  and  maintain  a  bridge  may  be 
taken  for  a  highway  under  this  power.629  A  statute  setting 
aside  an  inquisition  for  damages  and  substituting  an  inquisition 
de  novo  is  unobjectionable.030 

62 1  Illinois  v.  Michigan  Cent.  E,  E.  Co.,  14  111.  314. 

622  Green  v.  Biddle,  8  Wheat.  89,  5  L.  ed.  547;  Long  Island  Water 
Supply  Co.  v.  Brooklyn,  166  U.  S.  691,  17  S.  Ct.  718,  41  L.  ed.  1165. 

6  23  Alabama  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Kenney,  39  Ala.  307;  In  re  Kerr,  42 
Barb.  119;  Bellona  Comp.  Case,  3  Bland,  442;  Turnpike  Co.  v.  Bail- 
road  Co.,  10  Gill  &  J.  392;  Tuckahoe  C.  Co.  v.  Railroad  Co.,  11  Leigh, 
42,  36  Am.  Dec.  374;  Boston  W.  E.  Co.  v.  Eailroad,  40. Mass.  360; 
Backus  v.  Lebanon,  11  N.  H.  19,  35  Am.  Deo.  466;  Crosby  v.  Han- 
over.  36  N.  H.  404;  White  River  T.  Co.  v.  Eailroad  Co.,  21  Vt.  590. 

624  Barber  v.  Andover,  8  N.  H.  398;  Pierce  v.  Somersworth.  10 
N.  H.  369;  Armington  v.  Barnet,  15  Vt.  745;  Central  Bridge  Corp. 
v.  Lowell,  4  Gray,  474. 

625  Backus  v.  Lebanon,  11  N.  H.  19,  35  Am.  Dec.  466. 

626  Hyde  Park  v.  Oak  Woods  Cemetery  Assn.,  119  111.  141,  7  N. 
E.  627. 

627  Garrison  v.  New  York  City,  21  Wall.  196,  22  L.  ed.  612;  Ex 
parte  Girard  College,  31  Leg.  Int.  164. 

62S  Mills  v.  St.  Clair  County,  2  Gilm.  197;  Black  v.  Delaware  etc. 
R.  Canal  Co.,  24  N.  J.  Eq.  455. 

629  Central  Bridge  Corp.  v.  Lowell,  4  Gray,  474. 

630  Baltimore  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Nesbit,  10  How.  400,  13  L.  ed.  469; 
Cincinnati  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Clifford,  113  Ind.  466,  15  N.  E.  527; 
Wheeling  Bridge  etc.  Co.  v.  Steel  etc.  Co.,  41  W.  Va.  743,  24  S.  E. 
653. 


343  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,.  CI.  1 

The  police  power  is  an  inherent  attribute  of  sovereignty,  and 
the  state  cannot  abandon  it,  or  give  a  vested  right  to  its  exer- 
cise either  to  a  corporation  or  to  an  individual.031  The  provi- 
sions of  a  charter  cannot  exempt  a  corporation  or  its  officers 
from  regulations  made  in  the  exercise  of  the  police  power,632 
and  a  failure  to  comply  with  police  regulations  may  be  made 
ground  for  the  forfeiture  of  corporate  charters.633 

A  charter  granting  the  exclusive  privilege,  for  a  certain 
period,  to  supply  gas  within  a  city,  is  not  a  contract  which  will 
permit  the  corporation  to  prejudice  the  public  health  and  pub- 
lic safety,  and  is  subject  to  abrogation  under  the  police 
power.034  The  grant  of  a  privilege  to  conduct  a  lottery  is  a 
mere  license  subject  to  revocation  whenever  the  legislature  may 
deem  it  necessary  in  the  interest  of  the  public  morals.635  The 
exclusive  grant  of  slaughtering  privileges  is  of  the  same  nature 
and  may  be  abrogated  whenever  the  public  health  may  re- 
quire.636    In  the  exercise   of  this  power  a  city   may  compel  a 

63a  Beer  Co.  v.  Massachusetts,  97  U.  S.  32,  24  L.  ed.  989;  Fertil- 
izing Co.  v.  Hyde  Park,  97  U.  S.  659,  24  L.  ed.  1036;  Kresser  v. 
Lyman,  74  Fed.  767;  Stone  v.  Mississippi,  101  U.  S.  818,  25  L.  ed. 
1079;  Pennsylvania  K.  E.  v.  Miller,  132  U.  S.  83,  10  S.  Ct.  37,  33 
L.  ed.  267;  New  York  etc.  R.  R.  v.  Bristol,  151  U.  S.  567,  14  S.  Ct. 
440.  38  L.  ed.  269;  Hevren  v.  Reed,  126  Cal.  222,  58  Pac.  537;  La 
Croix  v.  County  Commissioners,  50  Conn.  329,  47  Am.  Rep.  652; 
Cleveland  v.  City  Council,  102  Ga.  243,  29  S.  E.  588,  43  L.  R.  A. 
638;  Platte  etc.  Co.  v.  Dowell,  17  Colo.  386,  30  Pac.  72;  Lake  Roland 
etc.  Ry.  v.  Baltimore,  77  Md.  381,  26  Atl.  516,  20  L.  R.  A.  126. 

632  Stone  v.  Mississippi,  101  U.  S.  820,  25  L.  ed.  1079;  New  Or- 
leans Gas  Co.  v.  Louisiana  Light  Co.,  115  U.  S.  669,  6  S.  Ct.  252, 
629  L.  ed.  516;  Cummings  v.  Spaunhorst,  5  Mo.  App.  21. 

633  State  v.  Southern  Pacific  R.  R.,  24  Tex.  80. 

634  New  Orleans  Gas  Co.  v.  Louisiana  Light  Co.,  115  U.  S.  671, 
29  L.  ed.  516;  New  Orleans  Waterworks  v.  Rivers,  115  U.  S.  681, 
6  S.  Ct.  273,  29  L.  ed.  525. 

635  Boyd  v.  Alabama,  94  U.  S.  650,  24  L.  ed.  302;  Stone  v.  Missis- 
sippi, 101  U.  S.  819,  25  L.  ed.  1079;  Douglas  v.  Kentucky,  168  U.  S. 
498,  18  S.  Ct.  199,  42  L.  ed.  553. 

636  Butcher's  Union  Co.  v.  Crescent  City  Co.,  Ill  U.  S.  751,  4 
S.  Ct.  652,  28  L.  ed.  585;  Portland  v.  Meyer,  32  Or.  371,  67  Am.  St. 
Rep.  539,  52  Pac.  22. 


Art.  1,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contkacts.  oii 

railroad  corporation  to  change  its  grade,637  or  compel  a  street 
railway  to  remove  one  of  two  tracks  permitted  under  its  fran- 
chise.638 The  power  extends  to  the  enactment  of  all  laws  in 
the  interest  of  public  safety  regulating  the  operation  of  rail- 
roads.639 

In  determining  the  validity  of  a  police  regulation,  the  fact 
that  the  business  authorized  by  charter  is  injuriously  affected 
is  immaterial.640  But  the  legislature  cannot,  under  the  guise 
of  laws  merely  purporting  to  be  police  regulations,  impair  or 
destroy  charter  rights.641  Every  legislative  grant  is  made 
with  an  implied  reservation  that  it  shall  not  be  exercised  so  as 
to  injure  others,642  and  the  legislature  is  the  exclusive  judge 
of  the  propriety  of  interference  in  the  use  of  private  property 
within  the  scope  of  legislative  power.643  Licenses  to  sell 
liquor  are  revocable  at  the  will  of  the  legislative  body,644  and 

637  New  York  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Bristol,  151  U.  S.  567,  14  S.  Ct.  440, 
38  L.  ed.  269;  Cleveland  v.  City  Council,  102  Ga.  243,  29  S.  E.  5SS, 
43  L.  E.  A.  638. 

638  Eoland  etc.  By.  v.  Baltimore,  77  Md.   381,  26  Atl.  516. 

639  Toledo  etc.  Ey.  v.  Jacksonville,  67  111.  37,  16  Am.  Rep.  611; 
Kansas  Pac.  Ry.  v.  Mower,  16  Kan.  573;  Galena  etc.  By.  v.  Loomis, 
13  111.  548,  56  Am.  Dec.  471;  Toledo  etc.  Ey.  Co.  v.  Deacon,  63  111. 
91;  Portland  v.  Boston  etc.  E.  E.,  65  Me.  122;  Blake  v.  Winona  etc. 
E.  E.,  19  Minn.  418,  18  Am.  Eep.  345;  Mobile  etc.  By.  v.  State,  51 
Miss.  13f;  Sloan  v.  Pacific  E.  E.,  61  Mo.  24,  21  Am.  Eep.  397;  Laks 
Shore  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Cincinnati  etc.   E.  E.,  30  Ohio  St.   604. 

640  Platte  etc.  Co.  v.  Dowell,  17  Colo.  376,  30  Pac.  63. 

641  Philadelphia  etc.  E.  R.  v.  Bowers,  4  Houst.  506;  Town  of  Lake 
View   v.  Base  Hill  Cemetery  Co.,  70  111.  191,  22  Am.   Rep.   71. 

642  Pittsburg  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Southwestern  Pennsylvania  E.  E., 
77  Pa.  St.  173. 

643  Munn  v.  Illinois,  94  U.  S.  113,  24  L.  ed.  77;  Owen  v.  Sioux 
City,  91  Iowa,  196,  59  N.  W.  4;  State  v.  Manufacturing  Co.,  18  R.  I. 
35,  25  Atl.  253,  17  L.  E.  A.  856. 

644  Beer  Co.  v.  Massachusetts,  97  U.  S.  32,  24  L.  ed.  989;  Kresser 
v.  Lyman,  74  Fed.  767;  Powell  v.  State,  69  Ala.  10;  Hevren  v.  Reed, 
126  Cal.  222,  58  Pac.  537;  La  Croix  v.  Fairfield  County  Commissioners, 
49  Conn.  602,  also  50  Conn.  329,  47  Am.  Eep.  652;  Brown  v.  State, 
82  Ga.  225,  7  S.  E.  916;  Columbus  City  v.  Cutcomp,  61  Iowa,  672, 
17  N.  W.  47;  Moore  v.  Indianapolis,  120  Ind.  492,  22  N.  E.  427;  Fell 
v.  State,  42  Md.  71,  20  Am.  Eep.  83;  Young  v.  Blaisdell,  138  Mass. 
345;  State  v.  Town  Council  of  Chester,  39  S.  C.  307,  17  S.  E.  752. 


345  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  i,  §  10,  01.  1 

a  corporation    holding    such  a  license    has  no  greater    rights 
under  it  than  an  individual.645 

A  corporation  claiming  exemption  from  legislative  control 
in  any  respect  must  show  an  express  relinquishment  of  such 
control  in  its  charter,  or  that  its  exercise  is  incompatible  with 
or  destructive  of  particular  rights  in  the  charter.646 

Corporate  Liability. 


A  statute  may  render  a  corporation  liable  for  its  debts,647  or 
may  render  the  stockholders  personally  liable  for  the  corpora- 
tion's debts,648  or  may  relieve  stockholders,  who  subsequently 
subscribed,  from  personal  liability.649  But  a  statute  repealing 
a  law  imposing  personal  liability  cannot  operate  to  impair  the 
remedy  for  the  collection  of  debts  incurred  before  its  pas- 
sage.650 While,  however,  a  charter  of  a  bank  organized  under 
general  law  permitting  stockholders  to  exempt  themselves  from 
liability  is  not  a  contract  with  the  state  that  no  change  with- 
drawing that  right  shall  subsequently  be  made,651  yet  where 
the  charter  fixes  the  stockholder's  liability,  without  reserving 
any  power  to  change  it,  a  fundamental  alteration  is  unconsti- 
tutional.652    Where  the  right  to  alter  or  repeal  the  charter  is 

645  Beer  Co.  v.  Massachusetts,  97  U.  S.  25,  24  L.  ed.  989. 

646  Munn  v.  Illinois,  94  U.  S.  113,  24  L.  ed.  77. 

647  Peters  v.  Eailroad  Co.,  23  Mo.  107;  Grannahan  v.  Railroad  Co., 
30  Mo.  546. 

648  Falconer  v.  Campbell,  2  McLean,  195,  Fed.  Cas.  Xo.  46:20; 
Coffin  v.  Rich,  45  Me.  507,  71  Am.  Dec.  559;  Stanley  v.  Stanley,  2(3 
Me.  191;  Gray  v.  Coffin,  63  Mass.  192. 

649  Ochiltree  v.  Railroad  Co.,  21  Wall.  249,  22  L.  ed.  546;  Price  v. 
St.   Louis  Ins.   Co.,   3  Mo.   App.   267. 

650  Hawthorne  v.  Calef,  2  Wall.  23,  17  L.  ed.  776;  Pearsall  v. 
Great  Northern  Ry.  Co.,  73  Fed.  939;  McDonnell  v.  Alabama  etc.  Ins. 
Co.,  85  Ala.  407,  5  South.   121;  St.  Louis  etc.  Ry.  v.  Harbine,  2  Mo. 

kpp.   139;    Gonant   v.  Van   Schaick,   24  Barb.   87.     But   see   Coffin    v. 
Rich,  45  Me.  507,   71  Am.  Dec.  559;  Richardson  v.  Akin,  87  111.  138. 

651  Sherman  v.  Smith,  1  Black,  587,  17  L.  ed.  163. 

652  Mowrey  v.  Indianapolis  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  4  Biss.  78,  Fed.  Cas.  Xo. 
9S91;  Steacy  v.  Little  Rock  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  5  Dill.  348,  Fed.  Cas.  Xo. 
13,329. 


Art.  I.  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  346 

reserved  ihcre  can  be  no  objection  to  a  law  increasing  the  in- 
dividual liability  of  the  stockholders.653 

The  legislature  may  subject  the  property  and  franchises  of 
corporations  to  the  payment  of  their  debts,654  or  may  provide 
means  for  enforcing  debts  against  them.655  Where  a  statute 
provides  that  a  corporation  shall  be  responsible  for  its  debts, 
rights  acquired  while  it  is  in  force  cannot  be  impaired.656  As 
to  prior  debts  a  state  cannot  provide  that  a  writ  of  sequestra- 
tion shall  not  issue  unless  the  corporation  is  guilty  of  misman- 
agement or  willful  delay  in  the  payment  of  its  obligations.657 
The  legislature  may  render  a  corporation  liable  to  suit  in  any 
county  if  it  does  not  thereby  injuriously  affect  corporate 
rights.658  It  may  make  a  corporation  liable  absolutely  in 
damages  for  certain  injuries  caused  by  it,  and  such  action  im- 
pairs no  obligation  contained  in  its  charter,659 

A  statute  enacted  subsequent  to  incorporation  may  make  a 
corporation  liable  to  suit  in  the  county  where  a  tort  committed 
by  it  occurs,660  and  may  give  to  a  legal  representative , a  right 
of  action  for  the  death  or  injury  of  his  decedent  caused  by  a 
corporation's  act.661  The  right  of  a  corporation  creditor  to 
proceed  against  the  stockholders  may  be  taken  away  and  vested 
in    a  trustee    without  impairing    any    contract    obligation.662 

653  South  Bay  Meadow  Dam  Co.  v.  Gray,  30  Me.  547;  Bissell  v. 
Heath,  98  Mich.  472,  57  N.  W.  585;  In  re  Empire  City  Bank,  18  N. 
Y.   199. 

654  Louisville  T.  Co.  v.  Lounsbury,  2-  Met,  (Ky.)  165. 

655  Foster  v.  Essex  Bank,  16  Mass.  245. 

656  Strubel  v.  Milwaukee  etc.  R.  R.,  12  Wis.  67. 

657  Penrose  v.  Erie  Canal  Co.,  56  Pa.  St.  46,  93  Am.  Dec.  778. 

658  Howard  v.  Insurance  Co.,  13  B.  Mon.  282;  Sanders  v.  Hills- 
borough Ins.  Co.,  44  N.  H.  238. 

659  Union  Pac.  Ey.  Co.  v.  De  Busk,  12  Colo.  294,  20  Pac.  752,  3 
L.  R.  A.  350;  Indianapolis  etc.  Co.,  v.  Kercheval,  16  Ind.  84;  Radc- 
macher  v.  Milwaukee  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  41  Iowa,  297,  20  Am.  Rep.  592; 
Mathews  v.  St.  Louis  etc.  Ry.,  121  Mo.  298,  24  S.  W.  591,  25  L.  R. 
A.  161;  Campbell  v.  Missouri  Pac.  Ry.,  121  Mo.  340,  25  S.  W.  936, 
25  L.  R.  A.  175. 

660  Davis  v.  Central  R.  R.  Co.,  17  Ga.  323. 

661  Southwestern  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Paulk,  24  Ga.  356;  Board  v.  Searce, 
2  Duvall,  576. 

662  Story  v.  Furman,   25  N.  Y.   214. 


347  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

The  legislature  may  modify  and  control  summary  proceedings 
against  stockholders,663  or  may  give  to  a  corporation  a  sum- 
mary remedy  against  its  debtors  or  repeal  an  act  giving  such 
a  remedy,664  or  may  change  the  mode  of  service  of  process 
against  a  corporation,664*  or  may  allow  attachment  of  property 
in  the  hands  of  stockholders  without  previously  exhausting  the 
assets  of  the  corporation.665  A  statute  authorizing  a  corpora- 
tion to  sue  in  its  own  name  impairs  no  contract  obligation,666 
nor  does  a  statute  authorizing  the  setoff  of  a  bank's  circulating 
notes  against  judgments  obtained  by  the  bank  impair  the  obli- 
gation of  its  charter.667 

Exemption  from  Taxation.* 

In  the  absence  of  any  constitutional  restriction,  a  state  legis- 
lature has  power  to  bind  the  state  in  relinquishing  its  power 
to  tax  a  corporation,  and  such  a  provision  in  a  charter  consti- 
tutes a  contract  which  the  state  may  not  subsequently  im- 
pair.668 The  same  protection  is  afforded  by  the  obligation 
clause  to  a  statute  granting  the  exemption  to  a  corporation 
without  reserve.669     The    taxing  power  is  of  such  paramount 

663  Ex  parte  Northeast  R.  R.  Co.,  37  Ala.  679;  Citizens'  Bank 
v.  Deynoodt,  25  La.  Ann.  628;  Merchants'  Ins.  Co.  v.  Hill,  86  Mo. 
466;  Hirsehfeld  v.  Bopp,  145  N.  Y.  84,  39  N.  E.  817. 

664  Bank  of  Columbia  v.  Okely,  4  Wheat.  235,  4  L.  ed.  559. 

664a  Cario  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Hecht,  95  U.  S.  168,  21  L.  ed.  423, 
affirming  29  Ark.  661;  New  Albany  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  McNamara,  11 
Ind.  543. 

665  Smith  v.  Bryan,  34  111.  264. 

666  Crawford  v.  Bank  of  Mobile,  7  How.  282,  12  L.  ed.  700;  OH 
Dominion  v.  McVeigh,  20   Gratt.  482. 

667  Blount  v.  Windley,  95  U.  S.  17?,  24  L.  ed.  424. 

668  Home  of  the  Friendless  v.  Rouse,  8  Wall.  436,  19  L.  ed.  495; 
Washington  University  v.  Rouse,  8  Wall.  439,  19  L.  ed.  498;  Raleigh 
etc.  R.  Co.  v.  Reid,  13  Wall.  269,  20  L.  ed.  570;  Humphrey  v.  Pegue*, 
16  Wall.  249,  21  L.  ed.  326;  The  Delaware  R.  R.  Tax,  18  Wall.  225, 
21  L.  ed.  888;  Trask  v.  Maguire,  18  Wall.  401,  21  L.  ed.  938;  North- 
western University  v.  Illinois,  99  U.  S.  309,  25  L.  ed.  3S7;  Asylum 
v.  New  Orleans,  105  U.  S.  369,  26  L.  ed.  1128. 

669  New  Jersey  v.  Yard,  95  U.  S.  115,  24  L.  ed.  352;  Wilmington 
etc.  R.  R.  v.  Atebrook,  146  U.  S.  293,  13  S.  Ct.  72,  36  L.  ed.  972; 
New  Jersey  v.  Wilson,  7  Cr.  167,  3  L.  ed.  303. 


♦Power  to  exempt  generally,  see  ante,  pp.  300-302. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  348 

importance,  however,  that  its  abandonment  ought  never  to  be 
presumed  unless  the  intention  of  the  legislature  is  clear,670  and 
that  intention  must  be  indicated  by  unmistakable  words.671 
The  power  is  necessary  to  the  existence  of  the  state,  and  acts 
limiting  it  must  be  strictly  construed  in  favor  of  the  state.672 
Accordingly  where  there  is  no  provision  in  a  charter  for  ex- 
emption from  taxation,  there  can  be  no  objection  to  any  sub- 
sequent tax  imposed  by  the  legislature.673  So,  also,  a  charter 
requiring  a  railway  to  pay  "such  license  as  is  now  paid  by 
other  companies"  is  not  such  a  contract  as  precludes  the  levy 
of  a  higher  or  different  tax,674  nor  is  a  bank  charter  providing 
that  no  higher  tax  shall  be  levied  upon  it  than  on  other  bank- 
ing institutions  in  the  state,675  and  a  provision  that  a  certain 
rate  of  taxes  shall  be  paid  in  lieu  of  all  taxes  to  the  state  does 
not  exempt  from  liability  for  municipal  taxes,676  nor  from  a 
school  tax.677 

670  Providence  Bank  v.  Billings,  4  Pet.  561,  7  L.  ed.  939;  Phila- 
delphia &  Wilmington  E.  E.  v.  Maryland,  10  How.  393,  13  L.  ed. 
464;  Eailroad  Co.  v.  Gaines,  97  U.  S.  708,  24  L.  ed.  1091;  Railway 
Co.  v.  Loftin,  98  U.  S.  564,  25  L.  ed.  222;  Yazoo  etc.  Ry.  v.  Adams, 
180  U.  S.  22,  21  S.  Ct.  240,  45  L.  ed.   395. 

671  Jefferson  Branch  Bank  v.  Skelly,  1  Black,  447,  17  L.  ed.  123; 
Morgan  v.  Louisiana,  93  TJ.  S.  222,  23  L.  ed.  860;  We3t  Wisconsin 
E.  E.  v.  Supervisors,  93  U.  S.  598,  23  L.  ed.  814;  Southwestern  E.  R. 
v.  Wright,  116  U.  S.  236,  6  S.  Ct.  375,  29  L.  ed.  626;  Vicksburg  etc. 
E,  E.  v.  Dennis,  116  U.  S.  668,  6  S.  Ct.  625,  29  L.  ed.  770;  New 
Orleans  etc.  E,  E.  v.  New  Orleans,  143  U.  S.  195,  12  S.  Ct.  406,  36 
L.  ed.  121;  Keoknk  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Missouri,  152  U.  S.  306,  14  S.  Ct. 
592,  38  L.  ed.  450;  Phoenix  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Tennessee,  161  U.  S. 
178,  16  S.  Ct.  471,  40  L.  ed.  660. 

672  Rector  of  Christ  Church  v.  County  of  Philadelphia,  24  How. 
302,  16  L.  ed.  602;  Erie  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  21  Wall.  492,  22 
L.  ed.  595;  Bank  v.  Tennessee,  104  U.  S.  495,  26  L.  ed.  810;  Eailway 
Co.  v.  Loftin,  105  U.  S.  261,  26  L.  ed.  1042;  Winona 'etc.  Land  Co. 
v.  Minnesota,  159  U.  S.  529,  16  S.  Ct.  83,  40  L.  ed.  247. 

673  Memphis  Gas  Co.  v.  Shelby  County,  109  U.  S.  400,  3  S.  Ct. 
205,  27  L.  ed.  976;  Citizens'  Savings  Bank  v.  Owensboro,  17:'.  U.  S. 
654,  19  S.  Ct.  530,  43  L.  ed.  840. 

674  Eailway  Co.  v.  Philadelphia,  101  TJ.  S.  536,  25  L.  ed.  912. 

675  Ohio  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Debolt,  16  How.  438,  14  L.  ed.  997. 

676  Lexington  v.  Aull,  30  Mo.  480;  Paris  v.  Farmers'  Bank,  30 
Mo.  575;  City  v.  Hannibal  etc.  E.  E.,  39  Mo.  476;  Pacific  E.  E.  Co. 
v.  Cass,  53  Mo.  17. 

677  Livingston  v.  Hannibal  etc.  E.  E.,  60  Mo.  516. 


349  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

While  it  is  not  necessary  that  a  bonus  should  be  received  to 
make  a  tax  exemption  binding  upon  the  state,678  yet  exemptions 
from  taxation  created  by  the  legislature  as  mere  gratuities  are 
like  any  other  agreements  without  consideration,  nude  pacts, 
and  are  subject  to  modification  or  repeal.679  The  mere  agree- 
ment on  the  part  of  the  corporation  to  do  something  which  it 
is  already  bound  to  do  is  not  sufficient  consideration,680  and 
a  statute  exempting  certain  manufacturing  corporations  from 
taxation  is  a  mere  bounty  law  subject  to  repeal  at  any  time.681 
Where,  however,  there  is  a  good  consideration  for  the  exemp- 
tion granted,  the  contract  becomes  irrevocable  by  the  legisla- 
ture.682 

A  provision  exempting  from  taxation  applies  not  merely  to 
the  state,  but  to  every  public  corporation  created  by  it,683  and 
so  long  as  a  corporation  uses  its  property  for  the  original  pur- 
pose the  exemption  continues.684  The  exemption  extends  to 
all  that  is  obviously  appropriate  and  convenient  to  carry  into 
effect  the  franchise  granted,  and  to  its  objects  and  its  use,6®3 

C78  Piqua  Branch  Bank  v.  Knoop,  16  How.  369,  14  L.  ed.  977. 

679  Tucker  v.  Ferguson,  22  Wall.  527.  22  L.  ed.  805;  West  Wis- 
consin E.  B.  Co.  v.  Supervisors,  93  U.  S.  597,  23  L.  ed.  814;  St.  Louis 
etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Loftin,  10  Ark.  693;  Holly  Springs  etc.  Co.  v. 
Marshall,  52  Miss.  281;  Sandusky  Bank  v.  Wilbor,  7  Ohio  St.  481; 
People  v.  Commissioners,  47  N.  Y.  501;  Hospital  v.  Philadelphia,  24 
Pa.  St.  229;  State  v.  County  Treasurer,  4  Eich.,  N.  S.,  520. 

680  Grand  Lodge  v.  New  Orleans,  166  TJ.  S.  149,  17  S.  Ct.  523,  41 
L    ed.  951. 

681  Salt  Co.  v.  East  Saginaw,  13  Wall.  377,  20  L.  ed.  611;  Fertil- 
izing Co.  v.  Hyde  Park,  97  IT.  S.  666,  24  L.  ed.  1036;  Welch  v.  Cook, 
97  U.  S.  543.  24  L.  ed.  1112. 

682  Wilmington  E.  E.  v.  Eeid,  13  Wall.  264,  20  L.  ed.  568;  Pacific 
E.  E.  Co.  v.  Maguire,  20  Wall.  36,  22  L.  ed.  282,  affirming  49  Mo. 
490,  8  Am.  Eep.  141;  Northwestern  University  v.  Illinois,  99  U.  S. 
309,  25  L.  ed.  387;  Oliver  v.  Memphis  etc.  E.  E.,  30  Ark.  128;  St. 
Vincent's  College  v.  Shaefer,  104  Mo.  261,  16  S.  W.  395;  Worth  v. 
Wilmington  etc.  E.  E.,  89  N.  C.  291,  45  Am.  Eep.  679. 

683  McGee  v.  Mathis,  4  Wall.  157,  18  L.  ed.  314;  Mayor  v.  Balti- 
more etc.  E.  B.  Co.,  6  Gill,  288,  48  Am.  Dec.  531;  Bank  of  Cape  Fear 
v.  Edwards.  5  Ired.  516;  State  Bank  v.  Ch«eston,  3  Eich.  342. 

6S4  Washington  University  v.  Eouse,  8  Wall.  439,  19  L.  ed.  498. 
685   State  v.  Georgia  E.  E.  etc.  Co.,  54  Ga.  423;  State  v.  Mansfield, 
23  X.  J.  510;  State  v.  Flavell,  24  N".  J.  370;   State  v.  Powers,    24  N. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1    Obligation  of  Contracts.  350 

including  real  and  personal  property  requisite  for  the  success- 
ful prosecution  of  its  business;686  but  a  general  exemption  w  ill 
be  strictly  construed  in  this  respect  and  will  be  held  to  extend 
only  to  property  held  for  the  transaction  of  the  corporation's 
business,687  and  it  cannot  include  property  acquired  in  con- 
templation of  future  needs.688  Exemption  from  "all  taxa- 
tion" includes  exemption  from  a  privilege  tax,689  but  not  ex- 
emption from  an  assessment  for  benefits  arising  from  the  open- 
ing or  improvement  of  a  street.690 

A  provision  exempting  a  corporation  from  taxation  exempts 
its  property  as  well  as  its  franchise,691  but  not  its  bunds.002 
A  transfer  or  succession  tax  is  not  a  tax  upon  property  but  a 
charge  for  a  privilege  enjoyed  under  state  law,  and  the  fact 
that  the  property  consists  of  bonds  exempt  from  taxation  does 
not  render  the  tax  void  as  impairing  the  obligation  of  con- 
tracts.693 

J.  400;  State  v.  Blundell,  24  N.  J.  402;  State  v.  Haight,  25  N.  J. 
40;  State  v.  Collector,  26  N.  J.  519;  Cook  v.  State,  33  N.  J.  474; 
State  v.  Hancock,  35  N.  J.  537;  State  v.  Woodruff,  3(3  N.  J.  94;  State 
v.  Collector,  38  N.  J.  270. 

656  Wilmington  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Reid,  13  Wall.  268,  20  L.  ed. 
568;  Pacific  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Maguire,  20  Wall.  44,  22  L.  ed.  282;  Far- 
rington  v.  Tennessee,  95  TJ.  S.  687,  24  L.  ed.  558;  New  Mexico  v. 
United  States  Trust  Co.,  172  U.  S.  181,  19  S.  Ct.  881,  43  L.  ed.  407; 
Nichols  v.  New  Haven  etc.  Co.,  42  Conn.  125;  State  v.  Philadelphin 
etc.  R.  R.,  45  Md.  383;  Hancock  v.  Singer  Mfg.  Co.,  62  N.  J.  L. 
336,  41  Atl.  850,  42  L.  R.  A.  852. 

657  Ford  v.  Delta  etc.  Land  Co.,  164  U.  S.  668,  17  S.  Ct.  230,  41 
L.   ed.   590. 

ess  Duluth  etc.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Douglas  County,  103  Wis.  81,  79  N.  E. 
36. 

689  Grand  Gulf  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Buck,  53  Miss.  246. 

690  State  Home  Society  v.  Mayor,  35  N.  J.  157;  City  v.  Society, 
24  N.  J.  385;  Mayor  v.  Proprietors,  7  Md.  517;  Sheehan  v.  Good 
Samaritan  Hospital,  50  Mo.  155,  11  Am.  Rep.  412.  But  see  St.  Paul 
etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  St.  Paul,  21  Minn.  526;  State  v.  Newark,  27  N. 
J.   L.   185. 

691  Camden  etc.  R.  R.  v.  Commissioners.  18  N.  J.  71.  But  see 
Municipality  v.  Commercial  Bank,  5  Rob.    (Da.)   151. 

692  State  v.  Branin,  23  N.  J.  484. 

693  Orr  v.  Gilman,  183  U.  S.  278,  22  S.  Ct.  213,  46  L.  ed.  196. 


351  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

If  a  charter  merely  exempts  the  corporation  and  its  prop- 
erty the  exemption  does  not  pass  to  a  purchaser  of  the  property 
at  foreclosure  or  execution  sale.694  Express  statutory  direction 
is  necessary  to  pass  the  exemption  to  a  purchaser,095  and  even 
the  grant  of  all  the  powers,  rights  and  privileges  does  not 
earn-  the  exemption.096  Construing  an  exemption  from  tax- 
ation as  a  personal  privilege  there  can  be  no  constitutional  ob- 
jection to  a  prohibition  against  exemptions  which  operates  to 
prevent  an  exemption  from  passing  upon  the  consolidation  of 
corporations;697  but  if  the  state  expressly  makes  the  immunity 
transferable  it  cannot  tax  property  in  the  hands  of  pur- 
chasers.698 

If  a  charter  stipulates  for  the  exemption  of  property  from 
taxation  no  tax  can  be  assessed  thereon,699  if  all  the  property 
is  used  for  necessary  purposes ;  and  all  the  property  not  so  used 
may  be  taxed.700'  It  is  immaterial,  however,  by  whom  the 
property  is  used;  if  it  is  used  for  the  purposes  of  the  corpora- 
tion it  is  exempt.701  So  if  a  charter  exempting  property 
authorizes   a  corporation   to  erect  and  rent  a  building,   it  ex- 

694  Morgan  v.  Louisiana,  93  XJ.  S.  217,  23  L.  ed.  860;  Trask  v. 
Maguire,  18  Wall.  391,  21  L.  ed.  938;  Eailroad  Co.  v.  Hamblen  County, 
102  TJ.  S.  275,  26  L.  ed.  152;  Wilson  v.  Gaines,  103  U.  S.  421,  26  L. 
ed.  401;  Memphis  E.  E.  v.  Commissioners,  112  U.  S.  617,  5  S.  Ct.  302, 
28  L.  ed.  837. 

695  Morgan  v.  Louisiana,  93  U.  S.  221,  23  L.  ed.  860;  Eailroad 
Co.  v.  Gaines,  97  TJ.  S.  711,  24  L.  ed.  1091. 

696  Piekard  v.  Tennessee  etc.  E.  E.,  130  U.  S.  642,  9  S.  Ct.  640, 
32  L.  ed.  1051;  Phoenix  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Tennessee,  161  U.  S.  177,  16 
S.  Ct.  471,  40  L.  ed.  660. 

697  Keokuk  etc.  Co.  v.  Missouri,  152  U.  S.  311,  14  S.  Ct.  596,  33 
L  ed.  450,  affirming  41  Fed.  307;  Chicago  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Guffey,  122> 
U.  S.  575,  7  S.  Ct.  693,  1300,  30  L.  ed.  1135;  Covington  etc.  Eoad  Co. 
v.  Sandford,  164  U.  S.  587,  17  S.  Ct.  201,  41  L.  ed.  560. 

698  St.  Paul  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Parcher,  14  Minn.  297;  State  v.  Win- 
ona etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  21  Minn.  315;  A.  &  C.  E.  E,  Co.  v.  Allen,  15  Fla. 
15. 

699  Hardy  v.  Waltham,  24  Mass.   108. 

700  Ford  v.  Delta  etc.  Land  Co.,  164  U.  S.  66S,  17  S.  Ct.  230,  41 
i,.  ed.  590;  State  v.  Love,  37  N.  J.  60. 

701  State  v.  Betts,  24  N.  J.  555. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  352 

empts  the  property  leased  as  stores.702     Exempting  the  prop- 
erty of  a  corporation  exempts  its  franchise.703 

A  charter  describing  the  mode  in  which  a  tax  shall  be  levied 
upon  the  corporation  is  not  such  a  contract  as  precludes  a 
change  in  that  mode,  provided  the  change  does  not  make  taxa- 
tion more  onerous;704  but  a  limitation  to  a  particular  mode 
includes  a  negative  of  any  other  mode.705  A  provision  in  a 
charter  merely  providing  that  the  corporation  shall  pay  an- 
nually into  the  treasury  a  certain  tax  does  not  amount  to  a 
contract  that  the  state  will  never  impose  a  different  or  greater 
tax.706  The  legislature  may  prescribe  a  bonus  to  be  paid  in 
commutation  of  all  taxes  on  corporate  stock  and  property,707 
and  where  the  charter  provides  that  a  certain  sum  or  a  certain 
percentage  of  the  receipts  paid  annually  shall  be  in  lieu  of  all 
other  taxes,  a  contract  is  created  which  the  legislature  cannot 
subsequently  impair.708 

702  State  v.  Leester,  29  N.  J.  541. 

703  Wilmington  B.  K.  Co.  v.  Beid,  13  Wall.  264,  20  L.  ed.  568 ; 
Pacific  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Maguire,  20  Wall.  44,  22  L.  ed.  282;  Porter  v. 
Kockford  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  76  111.  574;  Hancock  v.  Singer  Mfg.  Co.,  62 
N.  J.  L.  336,  41  Atl.  850,  42  L.  E.  A.  852. 

70  4  Ohio  Life  Ins.  etc.  Co.  v.  Debolt,  16  How.  438,  14  L.  ed.  997; 
Bailey  v.  Maguire,  22  Wall.  215,  22  L.  etl.  850;  Moore  v.  Holliday, 
4  Dill.  53,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9765;  State  v.  Morris,  49  N.  J.  L.  222,  7 
Atl.  840;  Louisville  etc.  E.  Co.  v.  Commonwealth,  73  Ky.  43;  State 
v.  Hannibal  &  St.  Joseph  E.  E.  Co.,  60  Mo.  143;  Morris  etc.  E.  E. 
Co.  v.  Commissioners,  38  N.  J.  L.  472;  State  v.  Petway,  55  N.  C. 
396. 

705  Baleigh  etc.  B.  E.  v.  Beid,  13  Wall.  269,  20  L.  ed.  570. 

706  Minot  v.  Philadelphia  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  18  Wall.  231,  21  L.  ed. 
888;  affirming  2  Abb.  U.  S.  323,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9645;  Union  Bank 
v.  State,  9  Yerg.  490. 

707  Daughdrill  v.  Alabama  etc.  Co.,  31  Ala.  91. 

708  Gordon  v.  Appeal  Tax  Court,  3  How.  147,  11  L.  ed.  529;  Piqua 
Branch  of  State  Bank  of  Ohio  v.  Knoop,  16  How.  386,  14  L.  ed.  977; 
Dodge  v.  Woolsey,  18  How.  331,  15  L.  ed.  401;  Mechanics'  Bank  v. 
Debolt,  18  How.  380,  15  L.  ed.  458;  Mechanics'  Bank  v.  Thomas,  13 
Bow.  384,  15  L.  ed.  460;  Jefferson  Branch  Bank  v.  Skelly,  1  Black, 
446,  17  L.  ed.  173;  Franklin  Bank  v.  State,  1  Black,  474,  17  L.  ed. 
180;  Farrington  v.  Tennessee,  95  U.  S.  687,  24  L.  ed.  558;  Wright 
V.  Sill,  2  Black,  544,  17  L.  ed.  333;  Atlantic  etc.  Ey.  Co.  v.  Allen, 
15  Fla.  €37;  Franklin  County  Court  v.  Deposit  Bank,  87  Ky.  370.  9 


353  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

Where  the  right  to  alter  the  charter  is  reserved,  the 
exemption  may  be  withdrawn  or  qualified;709  but  the  leg- 
islative power  retained  in  a  charter  to  dissolve  the  corpora- 
tion does  not  authorize  the  imposition  of  a  tax  upon  ex- 
empt property  without  granting  indemnity.710  A  corpora- 
tion may  yield  a  part  of  the  exemption  and  accept  other  terms 
in  lieu  thereof,711  but  if  a  charter  is  renewed  without  a  re- 
newal of  the  exemption  the  power  to  tax  is  revived.712  Where 
it  is  expressly  provided  in  the  charter  that  the  tax  is  to  be 
levied  upon  the  happening  of  some  future  contingency,  no  tax 
can  be  levied  prior  to  that  time.713 

Effect  and  Operation  of  Exemption. 

If  the  charter  of  a  corporation  exempts  the  capital  stock 
from  taxation,  the  exemption  extends  to  additional  capital 
permitted  under  subsequent  acts.714  If  the  stock  is  exempted 
the  state  cannot  levy  a  tax  upon  the  property  held  by  the  cor- 
poration,715 but  if  the  charter  makes  a  distinction  between  the 
capital  stock  and  other  property,  a  tax  may  be  laid  upon  the 

S.  W.  212;  Leroy  v.  East  S.  C.  E.  E.,  18  Mich.  233,  100  Am.  Dec. 
162;  O 'Donnelly  v.  Bailey,  24  Miss.  386;  Matheny  v.  Golden,  5  Ohio 
St.  361;  Mayor  v.  Baltimore  etc.  E.  E.,  6  Gill,  288,  48  Am.  Dec.  531; 
North  Missouri  E.  E.  v.  Maguire,  49  Mo.  499,  8  Am.  Eep.  145.  But 
see  State  v.  Bank  of  Smyrna,  2  Houst.  99,  73  Am.  Dec.  699. 

709  Tomlinson  v.  Jessup,  15  Wall.  459,  21  L.  ed.  204;  Louisville 
Water  Co.  v.  Clark,  143  U.  S.  1,  12  S.  Ct.  346,  36  L.  ed.  55,  affirm- 
ing 90  Ky.  515,  14  S.  W.  502;  Spring  Valley  Co.  v.  Bartlett,  8  Saw. 
589,  16  Fed.  642;  Hewitt  v.  New  York  etc.  E.  E.,  12  Blatchf.  467, 
Fed  Cas.  No.  6443;  Union  Imp.  Co.  v.  Commonwealth,  69  Pa.  St.  140; 
Commonwealth  v.  Fayette  CounVy  E.  E.,  55  Pa.  St.  542;  Iron  City 
Bank  v.  Pittsburgh,  37  Pa.  St.  340;  Mayor  v.  Eailroad  Co.,  113  N. 
Y.   318,  21  N.  E.  62. 

710  Santa  Anna's  Asylum  v.  City  of  New  Orleans,  105  U.  S.  362, 
26  L.  ed.  1128. 

7ii   State  v.  Commissioners,  37  N.  J.  240. 

712  State  v.  Bank  of  Smyrna,  2  Houst.  99,  73  Am.  Dec.  699. 

713  Ealeigh  etc.  E.  E,  Co.  v.  Eeid,  13  Wall.  269,  20  L.  ed.  570; 
Barnes  v.  Hornegay,  62  Fed.  671;  McGavisk  v.  State,  34  N.  J.  509. 

714  State  v.  New  Haven  etc.  E.  E.,  30  Conn.  290. 

715  New  Haven  v.  City  Bank,  31  Conn.  106;  Ordinary  v.  Central 
E.  E,  Co.,  40  Ga.  646;  Tax  Cases,  12  Gill    &  J.  117. 

Notes  on  Constitution — 23 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  354 

property  although  the  stock  is  exempt.716  The  immunity  of  a 
corporation  from  taxation  does  not  exonerate  dividends  paid 
to  stockholders.717  Accordingly  a  provision  merely  exempt- 
ing the  corporate  franchise  will  not  exempt  the  stockholders, 718 
but  a  stipulation  not  to  impose  any  further  tax  upon  a  corpora- 
tion whatever  precludes  any  taxation  of  the  stockholders  on 
account  of  their  stock,719  and  charter  exemption  of  stock  ex- 
empts a  corporation's  income.720  So  also  if  shares  are  ex- 
empted an  act  imposing  a  tax  upon  franchise  or  property  is  in- 
valid,721 and  a  contract  not  to  tax  a  railroad  or  its  property  is 
impaired  by  the  levy  of  a  tax  upon  its  gross  receipts  for  the 
transportation  of  freight  and  passengers.722  The  exemption  of 
a  railroad  from  taxation  does  not  exempt  the  lessee  of  the  road 
from  taxation  on  profits  and  earnings.723 

The  effect  of  the  consolidation  of  corporations  is  to  terminate 
the  existence  of  those  corporations,  and  to  form  a  new  corpora- 
tion,724 governed  by  a  law  existing  at  the  time  of  consolidation 
which  prohibits  exemptions.725  An  exemption  from  taxation 
is  merely  a  personal  privilege,  and  even  where  one  corporation 
is  authorized  to  retain  the  exemption  upon  consolidation,  it 
will  not  be  construed    to  apply  to  property    belonging  to  the 

716  St.  Louis  etc.  R.  R.  v.  Loftin,  30  Ark.  693. 

717  State  v.  Petway,  2  Jones  Eq.   396. 

7is  Gordon  v.  Appeal  Tax  Court,  3  How.  133,  11  L.  ed.  529. 

719  Gordon  v.  Appeal  Tax  Court,  3  How.  150,  11  L.  ed.  529;  Stat3 
v.  Branin,  23  N.  J.  L.  493;  State  v.  Bentley,  23  N.  J.  L.  540;  State 
v.  Powers,  24  N.  J.  400. 

7  20   State  v.  Hood,  15  Rich.  187. 

721  Mayor  v.  Baltimore  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  6'  Gill,  288,  48  Am.  Dec. 
531;  Nichols  v.  New  Haven  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  42  Conn.  103;  Hannibal 
etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Chacklett,  30  Mo.  550;  State  v.  Hannibal  etc.  R.  R. 
Co.,  37  Mo.  265. 

722  Pacific  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Maguire,  20  Wall.  36,  22  L.  ed.  282. 

723  State  v.  Delaware  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  30  N.  J.  473,  31  N.  J.  531. 

724  Keokuk  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Missouri,  152  U.  S.  305,  14  S.  Ct. 
593,  38  L.  ed.  450;  affirming  99  Mo.  36,  12  S.  W.  291;  Cheraw  etc. 
Ry.  Co.  v.  Commissioners,  88  N.  C.  525. 

725  Chicago  etc.  R.  R.  v.  Guffey,  122  U.  S.  575,  30  L.  ed.  113.T; 
Covington  etc.  Road  Co.  v.  Sandford,  164  U.  S.  587,  17  S.  Ct.  20], 
41  L.  ed.  560. 


355  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

other,726  and  upon  the  same  principle,  where  a  railroad's  prop- 
erty is  exempt  for  a  limited  time  only  the  limitation  follows 
the  property  into  the  consolidation  with  another  company 
whose  property  is  perpetually  exempt.727  Express  statutory 
direction  is  necessary  to  pass  property  to  a  purchaser  free  from 
taxation,728  and  in  the  absence  of  such  direction  taxation  of 
property  in  the  hands  of  the  purchaser  impairs  no  contract  ob-1 
ligation.729  Authority  to  sell  with  all  the  "powers,  rights  and 
privileges"  attaching  to  the  property  does  not  carry  an  exemp- 
tion from  taxation.730  If  the  stock  of  a  corporation  is  exempt, 
no  tax  can  be  levied  on  a  branch  road  constructed  under  author- 
ity of  an  amended  charter.731 

Banking  Corporations. 

A  charter  granted  to  a  bank  constitutes  a  contract  which  the 
state  cannot  impair,732  and  a  provision  in  a  charter  cannot  be 
abrogated  by  subsequent  legislation.733  Accordingly  a  provi- 
sion that  a  bank's  bills  shall  be  receivable  for  taxes  or  other 
debts  due  the  state  is  an  obligation  protected  by  this  clause,734 

726  Philadelphia  etc.  B.  E.  v.  State  of  Maryland,  10  Haw.  376,  13 
L.  ed.  461;  Tomlinson  v.  Branch,  15  Wall.  460,  21  L.  ed.  189;  Dela- 
ware E.  E.  Tax,  18  Wall.  206,  21  L.  ed.  888;  Evansville  etc.  E.  E.  Co. 
v.   Commonwealth,   9   Bush,  438. 

727  Tomlinson  v.  Branch,  15  Wall.  466,  21  L.  ed.  1S9;  Central  Ey. 
Co.  v.  Georgia,  92  TJ.  S.  676,  23  L.  ed.  757;  Eailroad  Co.  v.  Alsbrook, 
110  N.  C.  165,  14  S.  E.  659. 

728  Morgan  v.  Louisiana,  93  U.  S.  221,  26  L.  ed.  860;  Eailroad  Co. 
v.  Gaines,  97  U.  S.  711,  24  L.  ed.  1091. 

729  Armstrong  v.  Treasurer  of  Athens  County,  16  Pet.  290,  10 
L.  ed.  915;  Lord  v.  Litchfield,  36  Conn.  129,  4  Am.  Eep.  47;  Miami 
County  v.  Brackenridge,  12  Kan.   122. 

730  Pickard  v.  Tennessee  etc.  E.  E.,  130  TJ.  S.  642,  9  S.  Ct.  640, 
32  L.  ed.  1051;  Phoenix  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Tennessee,  161  TJ.  S.  177, 
16  S.  Ct.  471,  40  L.  ed.  660.  But  see  Humphreys  v.  Pegues,  16  Wall. 
244,  21  L.  ed.  326. 

731  Atlantic  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Allen,  15  Fla.  637. 

732  Woodruff  v.  Trapnall,  10  How.  206,  13  L.  ed.  383;  Paup  v.  Drew, 
10  How.  222,  13  L.  ed.  394;  Furman  v.  Nichol,  8  Wall.  63,  19  L.  ed. 
370;  Planters'  Bank  v.  Sharp,  6  How.  319,  12  L.  ed.  447. 

733  Furman  v.  Nichol,  8  Wall.  63  19  L.  ed.  370;  Barings  v.  Dabney, 
19  Wall.  11,  22  L.  ed.  90. 

734  Woodruff   v.   Trapnall,     10   How.    206,   13   L.   ed.   383;   Furman 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  356 

and  the  repeal  of  such  a  provision,  otherwise  valid,  cannot  af- 
fect notes  in  circulation  at  the  time  of  the  repeal.735  Even 
where  the  state  has  reserved  the  power  to  alter  or  repeal  the 
charter,  such  a  provision  as  the  one  referred  to  can  be  repealed 
only  by  clear  and  unobscure  language;  no  such  intent  can  be 
gathered  from  an  obscure  provision.736  Special  charter  author- 
ity derived  from  the  legislature  is  not  affected  by  general  leg- 
islation upon  the  same  subject.737  Where  a  statute  provides 
that  such  bills  are  payable  in  gold  and  silver  coin,  a  law  pro- 
viding that  depreciated  notes  shall  not  be  received  is  unobjec- 
tionable.738 A  charter  provision  or  a  statute  requiring  a 
bank  to  receive  its  own  notes  in  payment  of  debts  due  it  con- 
stitutes a  contract,  as  to  the  bank's  debtors,  which  cannot  be 
impaired.739 

The  general  right  to  regulate  the  issue  of  bank  notes  will 
not  be  held  to  have  been  relinquished  unless  the  intention  is 
clearly  expressed,740  and  a  statute  prohibiting  a  bank  from 
transferring  notes  by  indorsement  is  valid  unless  the  power  to 
do  so  is  expressly  conferred  in  the  charter.741  So  also  the 
legislature  may  make  interest  coupons  from  bonds  issued  for 
the  benefit  of  a  bank  receivable  in  payment  of  debts  due  the 
bank    in    the    absence    of    any    charter    obligation    to  pay  in 

v.  Nichol,  8  Wall.    63,  19  L.  ed.  370;    Keith  v.  Clark,    97  TJ.  S.  451, 
24  L.  ed.  1071. 

735  Woodruff  v.  Trapnall,  10  How.  236,  13  L.  ed.  383;  Paup  v. 
Drew,  10  How.  222,  13  L.  ed.  394;  Trigg  v.  Drew,  10  How.  224,  1» 
L.  ed.   397. 

736  State  v.  Stoll,  17  Wall.  436,  21  L.  ed.  650. 

737  Gilchrist  v.  Helena  etc.  B.  E.,  47  Fed.  595;  Gowen  v.  Harley, 
56  Fed.  979;  Huron  v.  Second  etc.  Bank,  86  Fed.  281,  49  L.  E.  A. 
534;  New  York  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Bridgeport  Traction  Co.,  65  Conn.  429, 
32  Atl.  956,  29  L.  E.  A.  367;  Dewey  v.  Central  Car  etc.  Co.,  42  Mich. 
402,  4  N.  W.  181. 

738  Gainesville  etc.  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Eoper,  15  Eich.  138. 

739  Knox  v.  Exchange  Bank,  12  Wall.  382,  20  L.  ed.  414;  Dundas 
v.   Bowler,  3  McLean,  397,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4141. 

740  Ohio  Trust  Co.  v.  Debolt,  16  How.  435,  14  L.  ed.  997;  1  Ohio 
St.  563;  State  v.  Matthews,  3  Jones  (N.  O),  451. 

741  Payne  v.  Baldwin,  11  Miss.  661;  Mclntyre  v.  Ingraham,  35 
Miss.  25. 


357  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

specie,742  or  may  require  the  bank  to  receive  its  own  notes  at 
their  par  value  in  payment  of  such  debts.743  A  statute  re- 
quiring sheriffs  levying  execution  in  favor  of  banks  to  accept 
the  bank's  notes  in  satisfaction  is  likewise  unobjectionable.744 
But  a  statute  which  permits  bank  notes  to  be  tendered  for  a 
debt  due  a  bank,  but  assigned  before  the  passage  of  the  statute, 
is  unconstitutional,745  and  where  bank  notes  are  made  payable 
at  a  certain  place,  a  statute  requiring  the  bank  to  receive  them 
in  payment  of  notes  of  other  banks  impairs  the  obligation  of 
a  contract  and  is  void.746  A  statute  may  provide  that  a  bank 
shall  redeem  several  bills  presented  together  as  one  obliga- 
tion,747 or  may  impose  a  penalty  for  refusal  to  pay  bank  bills 
unless  a  clause  in  the  charter  precludes  the  passage  of  such 
a  law.748  But  a  law  declaring  the  notes  of  a  state  bank  void 
is  unconstitutional.749 

A  banking  corporation  the  stock  of  which  is  owned  by  pri- 
vate individuals  is  a  private  corporation,750  but  a  state  cannot 
incorporate  associations  of  individuals  and  authorize  them  to 
coin  money.751  If  a  state  creates  a  bank  of  which  it  is  the 
sole  stockholder,  it  cannot  withdraw  the  fund  or  any  part 
without  impairing  the  contracts  of  the  bank's  creditors,752 
and  a  statute  which  withdraws  the  assets  of  a  bank  from  the 
operation  of  all  legal  process  is  upon  the  same  footing  and  is 

742  Thurston  v.  Peay,  21  Ark.  85. 

743  Bank  of  Maryland  v.  Ruff,  7  Gill  &  J.  448;  Williams  v.  Plant- 
ers' Bank,  12  Rob.  125;  Exchange  Bank  v.  Teddy,  67  N.  C.  169;  Bank 
v.  Hart,  67  N.  C.  264. 

744  Bank  of  Gallipolis  v.  Donnigan,  12  Ohio,  224,  40  Am.  Dee.  475. 

745  Dundas  v.  Bowler,  3  McLean,  397,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4141. 

746  Bank  v.  Bank  of  Cape  Fear,  13  Ired.  75. 

747  Reapers'  Bank  v.  Willard,  24  111.  433,  76  Am.  Dec.  765. 

748  Brown  v.  Penobscot  Bank,  8  Mass.  445. 

749  Keith  v.  Clark,  97  U.  S.  451,  24  L.  ed.  1071;  Virginia  Coupon 
Cases,  114  U.  S.  291,  5  S.  Ct.  219,  29  L.  ed.  185. 

750  Piqua  Branch  Bank  v.  Knoop,  16  How.  369,  14  L.  ed.  977; 
Miners'  Bank  v.  United  States,  1  Iowa,  553;  Hazen  v.  Union  Bank, 
1  Sneed,  115. 

751  Briscoe  v.  Bank  of  Kentucky,  11  Pet.  257,  9  L.  ed.  709,  7  J. 
J.  Marsh.  349. 

752  Curran  v.  Arkansas,  15  How.  320,  14  L.  ed.  705;  Dabney  v. 
Bank,  3  S.  C.  158;  State  and  Watson  v.  Bank,  5  Baxt.  65. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  358 

void.753  A  statute  appropriating  the  assets  Of  a  bank  operates 
as  an  assignment,  and  cannot  be  repealed  by  a  subsequent 
act.754  A  general  statute  making  the  suspension  of  specie 
payment  by  a  bank  ground  for  forfeiture  of  its  charter  is  void, 
where  no  such  power  is  reserved  in  the  charter.755 

A  statute  providing  that  in  the  event  of  a  bank's  insolvency 
the  directors  shall  be  primarily  liable  to  the  full  amount  of 
the  indebtedness,  thus  repealing  a  law  which  rendered  them 
only  secondarily  liable,  is  not  subject  to  the  objection  that  it 
impairs  contract  obligations.756  A  charter  provision  which  is 
merely  remedial — e.  g.,  allowing  the  bank  a  summary  process 
by  execution  in  the  nature  of  attachment  against  certain  cred- 
itors— is  not  a  part  of  the  contract  contained  in  the  charter.757 
So  also  an  act  providing  for  the  appointment  of  a  receiver  to 
take  charge  of  the  affairs  of  a  bank  and  conduct  its  suits  is 
valid,758  as  is  an  act  requiring  mortgages  held  by  a  bank  to 
be  stamped,759  or  an  act  providing  for  the  filing  of  an  infor- 
mation against  a  bank  for  the  violation  of  its  charter.760  A 
statute  allowing  a  judge  and  commissioner  to  reduce  the  ac- 
count in  a  savings  bank  affects  only  the  remedy,  and  is  valid.761 
The  legislature  may  assess  the  stockholders  of  a  bank  which 
has  gone  into  liquidation,  without  impairing  any  contract  ob- 
ligation.762 

Bridges  and  Ferries. 

A  charter  granted  to  a  bridge  or  ferry  corporation  is  a  con- 
tract;763 but  if  no    consideration  has    been  paid  the    grantee 

753  State  v.  Bank,  1  Kich.,  N.  S.,  63. 

754  Barings  v.  Dabney,  19  Wall.  11,  22  L.  ed.  90. 

755  State  v.  Toinbecbee  Bank,  2  Stew.  30. 

756  Falconer  v.  Campbell,  2  McLean,  195,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4620. 

757  Bank  of  Columbia  v.  Okely,  4  Wheat.  245,  4  L.  ed.  559. 

758  Carey  v.   Giles,   9   Ga.    258. 

759  Ex  parte  Burton,  3  Gill,  9. 

760  Commercial  Bank  v.  Kodney,  4  Smedes  &  M.  495. 

761  Simpson   v.   Savings  Bank,  56  N.   H.   466. 

762  Simpson  v.  Savings  Bank,  56  N".  H.  466. 

763  Proprietors  v.  Hoboken  Co.,  1  Wall.  116,  17  L.  ed.  571;  la 
re  Binghamton  Bridge,  3  Wall.  51,   18  L.  ed.   137;   Mills  v.  St.  Clair 


359  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

takes  a  franchise  subject  to  the  legislative  power  to  regulate 
rates  of  ferriage.764  A  statute  cannot  require  a  canal  corpora- 
tion to  keep  in  repair  the  bridges  connecting  the  highways  in- 
tersected by  its  canal.765  A  statute  giving  a  right  of  action  to 
those  who  have  been  injured  by  the  erection  of  a  close  bridge 
over  a  navigable  creek,  when  such  bridge  was  authorized  by 
charter,  impairs  the  obligation  of  the  charter  and  is  void.766 
If  the  charter  of  a  bridge  company  or  a  turnpike  company 
prescribes  the  form  of  signs  and  boards  with  rates  of  toll,  it 
will  prevail  over  a  general  statute  subsequently  passed.767 
Whether  a  state  can  deprive  itself  of  the  right  to  regulate  tolls 
has  been  questioned;768  but  where  a  charter  fixes  the  maxi- 
mum rate  to  be  charged  there  is  no  contract  which  precludes 
a  reduction  by  the  state.769  The  immunity  from  legislative 
control  must  be  granted  in  clear  and  unmistakable  terms,  and 
can  never  be  presumed.770  Where  the  right  to  alter  or  repeal 
the  charter  is  reserved  to  the  legislature,  there  can  be  no  ob- 
jection to  state  regulation  of  rates.771 

A  new  ferry  or  bridge  materially  diverting  travel  or  busi- 
ness from  an  old  one  established  under  a  prior  charter  is  not 
unconstitutional  unless  the  franchise  under  such  charter  is  ex- 
pressly made  exclusive.772     Accordingly  the  licensing  of  a  toll 

Co.,  8  How.  581,  12  L.  ed.  1201;  Koberts  v.  Washbourne,  10  Minu. 
33;  Enfield  Toll  Bridge  Co.  v.  Hartford  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  17  Conn.  40, 
42  Am.  Dec.  716. 

764  People  v.  Mayor,  32  Barb.  102;  State  v.  Hudson,  23  N.  J.  206, 
24  N.  J.  718. 

765  City  v.  Erie  Canal  Co.,  59  Pa.  St.  114.  See,  also,  Meadville 
v.  Erie  Canal  Co.,  18  Pa.  St.  66. 

766  Bailey  v.  Eailroad   Co.,  4  Harr.   389,   44  Am.   Dec.   593. 

767  Nichols  v.  Bertram,   20  Mass.   342. 

768  People  v.  City  of  New  York,  32  Barb.  102., 

769  Commonwealth  v.  Covington  etc.  Bridge  Co.,  14  Ky.  Law  Eep. 
836,   21   S.   W.    1042. 

770  Covington  etc.  Co.  v.  Sandford,  164  U.  S.  578,  17  S.  Ct.  193, 
41  L.  ed.  560. 

7"t  Parker  v.  Metropolitan  E.  E.  Co.,  109  Mass.  506;  People  v.  City 
of   New  York,   32    Barb.    102. 

772  Charles  Eiver  Bridge  Co.  v.  Warren  Bridge,  11  Pet.  544,  551, 
59  L.  ed.  773;  In  re  Hamilton  Av.,  14  Barb.  405;  Oswego  Bridge  Co. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  360 

bridge  does  not  impliedly  prohibit  a  free  bridge  in  the  same 
locality,773  or  the  subsequent  licensing  of  another  toll  bridge,774 
or  of  a  ferry.775  So  also  a  franchise  to  operate  a  ferry  in  the 
neighborhood  of  a  prior  ferry  does  not  impair  any  obligation  in 
the  ferry  franchise,776  and  the  licensing  of  one  ferry  cannot  pre- 
clude the  licensing  of  a  second  parallel  ferry.777  A  ferry 
franchise  granted  to  a  municipality  may  be  altered  or  revoked 
altogether.778 

A  franchise  may,  however,  be,  in  terms,  exclusive,  and  when 
this  is  so  a  contract  exists  which  the  legislature  cannot  im- 
pair.779    As  against  such  a  charter  or  franchise  another  ferry, 

v.  Fish,  1  Barb.  Ch.  547;  Fitch  v.  Railroad  Co.,  30  Conn.  38;  Harri- 
son v.  Young,  9  Ga.  151;  Illinois  etc.  Canal  Co.  v.  Railroad  Co.,  14 
111.  314;  Curtis  v.  Morehouse,  12  La.  Ann.  649;  Bush  v.  Peru  Bridge 
Co.,  3  Ind.  21;  Collins  v.  Sherman,  31  Miss.  679;  Mohawk  Bridge 
Co.  v.  Railroad  Co.,  6  Paige,  544;  Fort  Plain  Bridge  Co.  v.  Smitn, 
30  N.  Y.  44;  Thompson  v.  Railroad  Co.,  3  Sand.  Ch.  625. 

773  Victoria  Co.  v.  Bridge  Co.,  68  Tex.  67,  4  S.  W.  141;  Fall  v. 
Sutter  County,  21  Cal.  252;  Fort  Plain  Bridge  Co.  v.  Smith,  30  N. 
Y.  61;  Turnpike  Co.  v.  Montgomery  County,  100  Tenn.  422,  45  S. 
W.  346. 

774  Janesville  Bridge  Co.  v.  Stoughton,  1  Pinn.  672;  Shorter  v. 
Smith,  9  Ga.  524. 

775  Carrow  v.  Washington  Toll  Bridge,  Phill.  (N.  C.)  119.  See, 
also,  Bridge  Co.  v.  Spaulding,  63  N.  H.  299. 

776  East  Hartford  v.  Hartford  Bridge  Co.,  10  How.  533,  13  L.  ed. 
518;  Kansas  etc.  Ry.  v.  Payne,  49  Fed.  119;  Bush  v.  Peru  Bridge  Co., 

3  Ind.  22;  Harrison  v.  Young,  9  Ga.  364;  Piott  v.  Covington  etc. 
Bridge,  8  Bush  (Ky.),  37;  Collins  v.  Sherman,  31  Miss.  700. 

777  Mills  v.  St.  Clair  County,  8  How.  581,  12  L.  ed.  1201;  Bar- 
rington  v.  Neuse  etc.  Ferry,  69  N.  C.  172;  Gibbes  v.  Town  Council  of 
Beaufort,  21  S.  C.  217;  Knott  v.  Jefferson  etc.  Ferry,  9  Or.  535;  Min- 
turn  v.  Larue,  1  McCall,  376,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9646. 

778  East  Hartford  v.  Hartford  Bridge  Co.,  10  How.  533,  13  L.  ed. 
518. 

779  Bridge  Proprietors  v.  Hoboken  County,  1  Wall.  116,  17  L.  ed. 
571;  Conway  v.  Taylor,  1  Black,  603,  17  L.  ed.  191;  McRee  v.  Wil- 
mington etc.  Co.,  2  Jones  (N.  C),  186;  Enfield  etc.  Bridge  v.  Hart- 
ford etc.  Co.,  17  Conn.  40,  42  Am.  Dec.  716;  Hartford  B.  Co.  v. 
Union  F.  Co.,  29  Conn.  210;  Commonwealth  v.  New  Bedford  Br., 
68  Mass.  339;  Moha-wk  Bridge  Co.  v.  Utica  etc.  Co.,  6  Paige,  564; 
Thompson  v.  New  York  etc.  Co.,  3  Sand.  Ch.  625;  Trustees  of  Newport 


361  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

whether  free  or  for  hire,  is  prohibited,780  as  also  is  a  toll 
bridge  within  the  limits  of  the  exclusive  ferry  grant.781  But 
the  prohibition  in  toll  bridge  franchises  has  been  construed 
not  to  prevent  the  erection  of  railroad  bridges  within  the  pre- 
scribed limits.782  A  ferry  license  granted  early  in  Virginia 
was  declared  to  have  conferred  no  exclusive  rights  precluding 
competition.783  The  construction  of  a  railroad  bridge  is  not 
a  violation  of  the  exclusive  right  to  construct  a  bridge  for 
carriages  in  common  use.784 

Turnpike  and  Canal  Companies. 

The  charters  of  canal  and  turnpike  companies,  like  other 
charters,  are  contracts  within  the  meaning  of  the  obligation 
clause.785  The  legislature  cannot  require  a  canal  corporation 
to  keep  in  repair  the  bridges  connecting  the  highways  inter- 
sected by  its  canal  where  no  such  requirement  is  made  in  the 
charter.786  A  statute  conferring  the  right  to  collect  tolls  is 
a  grant  protected  by  the  constitution,787  and  where  the  charter 
of  a  turnpike  company  authorizes  it  to  collect  tolls  from  all 

v.  Taylor,  6  J.  J.  Marsh,  134;  Commonwealth  v.  Bacon,  13  Bush,  212, 
26  Am.  Kep.  189;  Murray  v.  Menefee,  20  Ark.  566;  Mills  v.  County 
of  St.  Clair,  2  Gilm.  228;  Davis  v.  Police  Jury,  1  La.  Ann.  296;  Costor 
v.  Brush,  25  Wend.  631. 

780  Aiken  v.  Western  B.  E.,  20  N.  T.  380. 

781  Mason  v.  Harper's  Ferry  Bridge  Co.,  17  W.  Va.  42. 

782  Lake  v.  Virginia  etc.  R.  B.,  7  Nev.  299;  McLeod  v.  Savannah 
etc.  B.  B.,  25  Ga.  457;  Proprietors  v.  Hoboken  Land  Co.,  13  N.  J. 
Eq.  526;  Thompson  v.  New  York  etc.  B.  B.,  3  Sand.  Ch.  657. 

783  Belmont  Bridge  v.  Wheeling  Bridge,  138  U.  S.  293,  11  S.  C*. 
303,  34  L.  ed.  967. 

784  Bridge  Proprietors  v.  Hoboken  etc.  Co.,  1  Wall.  116,  17  L.  ed. 
571;  McLeod  v.  Savannah  etc.  B.  B.  Co.,  25  Ga.  445;  Mohawk  Bridge 
Co.  v.  Eailroad  Co.,  6  Baige,  554;  Thompson  v.  Bailroad  Co.,  3  Sand. 
Ch.   625. 

7S5  Chesapeake  &  Ohio  Canal  Co.  v.  Baltimore  etc.  B.  E.  Co.,  4 
Gill  &  J.  1;  City  of  Erie  v.  Erie  Canal  Co.,  59  Pa.  St.  174;  Hartman 
v.  Bechtel,  1  Woodw.  Dec.  32;  Philadelphia  etc.  Co.  v.  Gortland,  6 
Phila.   128;   Pingry   v.   Washburn,   1   Aik.   264,   15   Am.   Dec.   676. 

786  City  of  Erie  v.  Erie  Canal  Co.,  59  Pa.  St.  174.  And  see  Mead- 
ville  v.  Erie  Canal  Co.,  18  Pa.  St.  66. 

787  Derby  Turnpike   Co.  v.  Parks,  10  Conn.  522,  27  Am.  Dec.  700. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  362 

persons  without  exception,  a  subsequent  act  exempting  certain 
classes  of  persons  is  void.788  So  also  is  a  statute  authorizing 
commissioners  to  examine  turnpike  roads  and  throw  open  gates 
if  the  roads  are  not  found  in  repair;789  but  it  is  within  the 
power  of  the  legislature  to  appoint  commissioners  with  power 
to  direct  repairs.790  The  legislature  cannot  require  a  turnpike 
company  to  set  back  its  gates  located  in  accordance  with  the 
terms  of  its  charter.791  There  is  no  implied  contract  of  an 
exclusive  grant  to  a  turnpike  company,  or  that  it  shall  be  free 
from  the  exercise  of  the  governmental  right  of  eminent  do- 
main.792 

There  can  be  no  implication  of  exclusive  rights  in  favor  of 
turnpike  companies  as  against  other  turnpikes  or  railroads,793 
or  as  against  individuals,794  or  in  favor  of  a  canal  company  as 
against  a  railroad  subsequently  chartered.795  So  the  licens- 
ing of  a  new  road  or  canal  materially  diverting  travel  or  busi- 
ness from  an  old  one  established  under  a  prior  charter  is  not 
unconstitutional  unless  the  franchise  is  denned  or  made  exclu- 
sive,796 and  this  is  true  notwithstanding  the  competition  thus 

788  Hartman  v.  Bechtel,  1  Woodw.  Dec.  32;  Philadelphia  etc.  Co. 
v.  Gortland,  6  Phila.  128;  Pingry  v.  Washburn,  1  Aik.  204,  15  Am. 
Dec.  676. 

789  Powel  v.  Sanrmons,  31  Ala.  552. 

790  State    v.    Bosworth,    13    Vt.    402. 

791  White's  Creek  Turnpike  Co.  v.  Davidson  Co.,  3  Tenn.  Ch.  396. 

792  White  Kiver  Turnpike  Co.  v.  Vermont  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  21  Vt. 
590. 

793  Douglass  County  Road  Co.  v.  C.  &  G.  R.  Co.,  8  Or.  108;  Canyon- 
ville  etc.  Road  Co.  v.  Stephenson,  8  Or.  267;  Turnpike  Co.  v.  Mont- 
gomery County,  100  Tenn.  422,  45  S.  W.  346;  Turnpike  Co.  v.  David- 
eon,  91  Tenn.  294,  18  S.  W.  627;  Salem  etc.  Co.  v.  Lynne,  18  Conn. 
457;   White   River  Turnpike   Co.   v.  Vermont   etc.   R.   R.,   21   Vt.  595. 

794  Indian  etc.  Road  v.  Robinson,  13  Cal.  519;  Bartram  v.  Central 
Turnpike  Co.,  35  Cal.  287;  Crawfordsville  etc.  Co.  v.  Smith,  89  Ind. 
295;  Auburn  etc.  Plank  Road  v.  Douglass,  9  N.  Y.  452. 

795  Illinois  etc.  Canal  v.  Chicago  etc.  R.  R.,  14  111.  314;  Tuckahoe 
Canal  Co.  v.  Railroad  Co.,  11  Leigh,  73,  36  Am.  Dec.  378. 

796  Turnpike  Co.  v.  Maryland,  3  Wall.  210,  18  L.  ed.  180;  Salem 
Turnpike  Co.  v.  Town  of  Lynne,  18  Conn.  451;  Washington  etc.  Turn- 
pike Co.  v.  Baltimore  etc.  R.  R.,  10  Gill  &  J.  392;  Illinois  etc.  Canal 
v.  Chicago  etc.  R.  R.,  14  111.  314;  Tuckahoe  Canal  Co.  v.  Tuckahoe 
etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  11  Leigh,  42,  36  Am.  Dec.  374. 


363  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

introduced  totally  destroys  the  value  of  the  first  license.797 
The  legislature  cannot,  however,  authorize  the  construction  of 
a  road  the  sole  purpose  of  which  is  to  evade  turnpike  tolls.798 
A  claim  of  immunity  from  legislative  control  of  tolls  to  be 
exacted  by  a  corporation  authorized  to  construct  a  road  is 
subject  to  the  same  rule  of  strict  interpretation  as  a  grant  of 
immunity  from  taxation,799  and  an  exemption  from  the  exercise 
of  the  state's  right  in  this  regard  will  never  be  implied  from 
anything  short  of  an  explicit  unequivocal  provision.800  A 
right  to  levy  tolls  at  all  must  be  expressly  granted  and  will 
never  be  implied.801  It  has  been  held  that  a  turnpike  fran- 
chise does  not,  by  implication,  prohibit  an  adjoining  owner 
from  moving  his  roadside  fence  back  upon  his  premises,  where 
his  purpose  is  to  gain  better  access  to  his  outbuildings,802  and 
that  the  privilege  of  erecting  a  toll-gate  within  two  miles  of  a 
town  means  two  miles  and  no  nearer.803  A  canal  company 
with  a  charter  right  to  collect  tolls  in  certain  cases,  which  are 
enumerated,  is  impliedly  prohibited  from  exacting  tolls  in 
others.804 

Railroad  Corporations. 

A  charter  granted  to  a  railroad  corporation  is  a  contract,805 
and  a  franchise  granted  to  one  railroad  cannot  be  revoked  or 

797  Hyde's  Ferry  Turnpike  Co.  v.  Davidson  County,  91  Tenn.  291, 
18    S.   W.   626. 

798  Hyde's  Ferry  Turnpike  Co.  v.  Davidson  County,  91  Tenn.  291, 
18  S.  W.  626. 

799  Covington  Turnpike  Co.  v.  Sandford,  164  U.  S.  578,  17  S.  Ct. 
198,  41  L.  ed.  560. 

soo  Buggies  v.  Illinois,  108  IT.  S.  531,  2  S.  Ot.  836,  27  L.  ed.  812; 
Stone  v.  Farmers'  Loan  etc.  Co.,  116  U.  S.  326,  6  S.  Ct.  342,  29  L.  ed. 
636;  Pennsylvania  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Miller,  132  IT.  S.  84,  10  S.  Ct.  37,  33  L. 
ed.  267,  affirming  129  Pa.  St.  200;  Wells-Fargo  v.  Oregon  Ey.,  8  Saw.  616. 
15  Fed.  573;  Atlantic  &  Pacific  Ey.  v.  United  States,  76  Fed.  192. 

801  Camden  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Briggs,  22  N.  J.  L.    647. 

802  Auburn  etc.  Plank  Eoad  v.  Douglass,  9  N.  Y.  452. 

803  State  v.  Clarksville  etc.  E.  E.,  2  Sneed,  92. 

804  Perrine  v.  Chesapeake  etc.  Canal  Co.,  9  How.  192,  13  L.  ed.  92; 
Sturgeon  etc.  Canal  Co.  v.  Leatham,  164  111.  243,  45  N.  E.  424. 

805  Wilmington  E.  E.  v.  Eeid,  13  Wall.  266,  20  L.  ed.  568;  Pacific 
K.  E.  Co.  v.  Maguire,  20  Wall.  43,  22  L.  ed.  282;   Chicago  etc.  E.  E. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  364 

granted  to  another.806  A  franchise  to  operate  a  street  rail- 
road, if  valid  when  granted,  cannot  be  impaired  either  by  legis- 
lative act  or  judicial  decision.807  Any  act,  no  matter  what  its 
nature,  which  essentially  impairs  the  franchise  is  void.808  An 
ordinance  which  merely  amounts  to  a  proposition  to  grant  a 
franchise,  in  consideration  of  the  construction  and  operation 
of  a  street  railroad,  when  accepted  by  performance,  becomes  a 
contract  unimpairable  by  the  state.809 

Upon  the  consolidation  of  two  or  more  railroad  corporations, 
the  franchise  granted  to  the  consolidated  corporation  is  sub- 
ject to  the  laws  in  force  at  the  time  of  the  consolidation;810 
the  consolidation  works  their  individual  dissolution.811 

The  rule  that  grants  of  exclusive  franchises  are  never  to  be 
presumed  applies  as  strongly  to  railroads  as  to  other  corpora- 
tions, and  a  charter  conferring  the  right  to  construct  a  rail- 
road between  certain  points,  contains  no  implied  prohibition 
against  a  similar  franchise  to  a  competing  road,812  and  even 

v.  Iowa,  94  U.  S.  161,  24  L.  ed.  94;  New  York  etc.  E.  K.  v.  Pennsyl- 
vania, 153  U.  S.  655,  14  S.  Ct.  952,  38  L.  eel.  816;  Pearsall  v.  Great 
Northern  By.,  161  U.  S.  661,  16  S.  Ct.  705,  40  L.  ed.  838;  Houston 
etc.  Ey.  v.  Texas,  170  U.  S.  261,  18  S.  Ct.  610,  42  L.  ed.  1023. 

806  New  Orleans  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Delamore,  114  U.  S.  510,  29  L.  ed. 
244. 

807   Chicago  v.   Sheldon,  9  Wall.  55,  19  L.  ed.  594. 

808  Sloan  v.  Missouri  Pacific  E.  E.,  61  Mo.  24,  21  Am.  Eep.  397; 
Philadelphia  etc.     E.  E.  v.  Bowers,  4  Houst.  506. 

809  City  Ey.  v.  Citizens'  E.  E.,  166  U.  S.  567,  17  S.  Ct.  653,  11 
L.  ed.  1114. 

8io  Eailroad  Co.  v.  Maine,  96  U.  S.  510,  24  L.  ed.  836;  Pullman 
Car  Co.  v.  Missouri  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  115  U.  S.  594,  6  S.  Ct.  197,  29  L. 
ed.  499;  Market  St.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Hellman,  109  Cal.  5S7,  42  Pac.  230; 
State  v.  Keokuk  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  99  Mo.  41,  12  S.  W.  292,  6  L.  E.  A. 
222. 

sii  Shields  v.  Ohio,  95  U.  S.  323,  24  L.  ed.  357;  Chesapeake  etc. 
Ey.  v.  Miller,  114  U.  S.  188,  5  S.  Ct.  819,  29  L.  ed.  121;  Wabash  etc. 
E.  E.  Co.  v.  Ham,  114  XT.  S.  595,  5  S.  Ct.  1085,  29  L.  ed.  235;  Keokuk 
etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Missouri,  152  U.  S.  310,  14  S.  Ct.  595,  38  L.  ed.  450; 
Smith  v.  Lake  Shore  etc.  Ey.  Co.,  114  Mich.  462,  72  N.  W.  331; 
Montclair  v.  New  York  etc.  Ey.,  45  N.  J.  Eq.  442,  18  Atl.  244;  Miner 
v.  New  York  etc.  E.  E.,  123  N.  Y.  251,  25  N.  E.  341. 

812  Eichmond  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Louisiana  etc.  E.  E.,  13  How.  71,  14  L. 
ed.  55;  State  v.  Noyes,  47  Me.   189;  Baltimore  etc.  B,  E.  v.  State, 


365  Obligation  of  Contracts.    Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

when  the  right  granted  is  expressly  made  exclusive  between 
certain  terminal  points,  it  is  not  so  between  intermediate 
points.813  An  express  company's  charter  does  not  contain  any 
contract  that  the  state  will  not  permit  a  railroad  company  to 
compete  with  it.814  There  is  no  implied  contract  in  a  rail- 
road charter  that  the  state  will  never  place  any  restrictions 
upon  its  assumed  power  to  consolidate;815  or  to  lease  property 
or  lines;816  or  to  join  with  other  roads  in  constructing  a 
through  line.817 

A  state  may  regulate  the  rates  to  be  charged  by  a  railroad 
for  the  transportation  of  freight  and  passengers,  unless  re- 
strained by  some  positive  provision  in  the  charter;818  and  its 
power  in  this  regard  is  not  affected  by  the  fact  that  the  cor- 
poration's income  has  been  pledged  to  meet  obligations  in- 
curred on  the  faith  of  the  charter.819  Eailroads,  being  high- 
ways of  commerce,  are  not  for  all  purposes  private  property — 
possessing  a  public  character  they  are  subject  to  public  super- 
vision,820  and  an  exemption  from  the  exercise  of  this  power 

45  Md.  596;  Boston  etc.  Corp.  v.  Boston  &  Maine  E.  B.,  5  Cush.  275; 
Connecting  By.  Co.  v.  Union  By.  Co.,  108  111.  272;  Collins  v.  Sherman, 
31  Miss.  700. 

813  Delaware  etc.  Co.  v.  Earitan  etc.  Co.,  16  N.  J.  Eq.  336,  18  N. 
J.  Eq.  569. 

814  Camblas  v.  Bhiladelphia  etc.  E.  B.,  4  Fed.  Cas.  1102. 

815  East  etc.  By.  v.  Bushing,  69  Tex.  314,  6  S.  W.  387. 

816  Bardin  v.  Northern  Pacific  E.  E.,  154  U.  S.  325,  14  S.  Ct.  1037, 
38  L.  ed.  992,  reversing  46  Fed.  611. 

817  Pennsylvania  E.  E.  v.  National  E.  E.,  23  N.  J.  Eq.    455. 

818  Chicago  etc.  B.  E.  v.  Iowa,  94  U.  S.  155,  24  L.  ed.  94;  Winona 
etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Blake,  94  U.  S.  180,  24  L.  ed.  99,  affirming  19  Minn. 
418,  18  Am.  Eep.  345;  Buggies  v.  Illinois,  108  U.  S.  526,  2  S.  Ct.  832, 
27  L.  ed.  812;  Burlington  etc.  By.  Co.  v.  Dey,  82  Iowa,  312,  48  N.  W. 
98,  31  Am.  St.  Eep.  477,  12  L.  E.  A.  436;  American  Coal  Co.  v.  Con- 
solidated Coal  Co.,  46  Md.  15;  Owen  v.  St.  Louis  etc.  E.  E.,  83  Mo. 
454;  Attorney  General  v.  Chicago  etc.  Ey.  Co.,  35  Wis.  425. 

819  Chicago  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Iowa,  94  U.  S.  155,  24  L.  ed.  94. 

820  Chicago  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Iowa,  94  U.  S.  155,  24  L.  ed.  94;  Dow  v. 
Beidelman,  125  U.  S.  686,  8  S.  Ct.  1028,  31  L.  ed.  680;  Chicago  etc. 
B.  E.  v.  Jones,  149  111.  377,  41  Am.  St.  Eep.  2S5,  37  N.  E.  251,  24  L. 
E.  A.  141;  Wellman  v.  Bailway  Co.,  83  Mich.  611,  47  N.  W.  494: 
Pingree   v.   Michigan   etc.   B.   E.   Co.,   118   Mich.   323,   76  N.   W.   638, 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  3GG 

will  never  be  presumed.821  So  a  statute  authorizing  a  railroad 
company's  directors  "to  adopt  and  establish  such  a  tariff  of 
charges  for  the  transportation  of  persons  and  property  as  they 
may  think  proper,  and  the  same  to  alter  and  change  at  pleas- 
ure," has  been  held  not  to  constitute  an  adequate  surrender  of 
the  legislative  power  to  regulate.822  A  railroad  charter  giving 
an  exclusive  right  to  carry  persons  and  property,  "provided 
that  the  charge  of  transportation  or  conveyance  shall  not  ex- 
ceed" specified  rates,  does  not  preclude  the  establishment  of 
other  and  lower  rates  by  the  state,823  nor  does  a  charter  giving 
a  railroad  corporation  power  to  fix  its  own  rates,  providing 
they  shall  not  be  unreasonable,  surrender  the  power  of  the  state 
to  regulate.824  A  charter  provision  authorizing  the  directors 
to  make  such  by-laws  as  may  be  expedient,  not  repugnant  to 
the  laws  of  the  state,  contemplates  subsequent  as  well  as  prior 
laws,  and  therefore  does  not  preclude  the  passage  of  an  act 
establishing  rates.825 

It  is  competent  for  the  state  to  empower  a  corporation  ab- 
solutely to  fix  its  own  rates,  and  where  this  is  done  expressly, 
any  attempt  to  change  the  rates  by  the  state  impairs  a  contract 
obligation.826     But  notwithstanding  such  power  is  given  to  a 

53  L.  R.  A.  274;  Atlantic  Express  Co.  v.  Railroad  Co.,  Ill  N.  C. 
472,  32  Am.  St.  Rep.  806,  16  S.  E.  393,  18  L.  R.  A.  393;  Pittsburg  etc. 
R.  R.  v.   Southwestern  Pennsylvania  R.  R.  Co.,  77  Pa.  St.   173. 

821  Ruggles  v.  Illinois,  108  U.  S.  531,  2  S.  Ct.  836,  27  L.  ed.  812; 
Stone  v.  Farmers'  Loan  etc.  Co.,  116  U.  S.  326,  6  S.  Ct.  342,  29  L. 
ed.  636;  Wells-Fargo  v.  Oregon  Ry.,  8  Saw.  616,  15  Fed.  573;  Penn- 
sylvania R,  R.  v.  Miller,  132  II.  S.  84,  10  S.  Ct.    37,  33  L.  ed.  267. 

822  Stone  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  R.  Co.,  116  U.  S.  347,  6  S.  Ct.  348,  29 
L.  ed.  636.  And  see  Stone  v.  New  Orleans  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  116  U.  S. 
352,  6  S.  Ct.  349,  29  L.  ed.  651. 

823  Georgia  R.  R.  etc.  Co.  v.  Smith,  128  U.  S.  174,  9  S.  Ct.  47, 
32  L.  ed.  377;  Dow  v.  Beidelman,  49  Ark.  325,  5  S.  W.  297. 

824  Chicago  etc.  Ry.  v.  Minnesota,  134  U.  S.  418,  10  S.  Ct.  462,  33 
L.  ed.  970. 

825  Chicago  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Jones,  149  111.  361,  41  Am.  St.  Rep. 
278,  37  N.  E.  247,  24  L.  R.  A.  141. 

826  Ex  parte  Koehler,  23  Fed.  529;  Philadelphia  etc.  Ry.  Co.  v. 
Bowers,  4  Houst.  506;  Hamilton  v.  Keith,  5  Bush  (Ky.),  458;  At- 
torney General  v.  Chicago  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  35  Wis.  425;  Sloan  v.  Mis- 
souri etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  61  Mo.  24,  21  Am.  Rep.  397. 


367  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CL  1 

railway  company  by  charter,  the  state  may  create  a  commission 
to  prevent  unjust  discriminations,827  and  may  impose  a  penalty 
for  taking  unlawful  toll  or  freight.828  The  reservation  of 
power  to  amend  or  repeal  corporate  charters  gives  the  legisla- 
ture power  to  alter  rates  at  pleasure  without  contravening  the 
obligation  clause,829  and  the  fact  that  the  state  does  not  exer- 
cise this  reserved  power  for  years  after  a  charter  is  granted 
does  not  affect  the  power;  a  governmental  power  cannot  be  lost 
by  nonuser.830 

Railroad  corporations  are  always  amenable  to  the  state's 
police  power,  notwithstanding  any  charter  provisions  to  the 
contrary.831  Under  this  power  the  legislature  may  provide  for 
the  appointment  of  commissioners  to  determine  the  duties  and 
obligation  of  railroad  companies,832  or  may  forbid  the  con- 
struction of  a  track  where  it  will  endanger  safe  and  convenient 
access  to  a  depot,833  or  may  require  railroads  to  build  depots 
at  certain  places  and  stop  thereat.834  Such  regulations  are 
reasonable  and  clearly  within  the  police  power.835     If  a  com- 

827  Chicago  etc.  E.  E.  v.  People,  67  111.  11;  Vincent  v.  Chicago 
etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  49  111.  33;  Chicago  etc.  E.  E.  v.  People,  56  111.  365,  S 
Am.  Eep.  690;  Stone  v.  Yazoo  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  62  Miss.  607,  52  Am. 
Eep.  193. 

828  Camden  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Briggs,  22  K  J.  623;  Norris  v. 
Androscoggin  E.  E.  Co.,  39  Me.   273,  63  Am.  Dec.   621. 

829  Peik  v.  Chicago  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  94  U.  S.  164,  24  L.  ed.  97; 
Stone  v.  New  Orleans  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  116  U.  S.  352,  6  S.  Ct.  349,  29 
L.  ed.  651;  St.  Louis  etc.  Ey.  Co.  v.  Gill,  54  Ark.  101,  15  S.  W.  18, 
11  L.  E.  A.  452;  Shields  v.  State,  28  Ohio  St.  86. 

830  Chicago  etc.  Ey  Co.  v.  Iowa,  94  U.  S.  155,  24  L.  ed.  94. 

831  Chicago  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Nebraska,  170  U.  S.  73,  42  L.  ed.  948; 
Toledo  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  City  of  Jacksonville,  67  111.  37,  16  Am.  Eep.  611; 
Kansas  Pacific  Ey.  Co.  v.  Mower,  16  Kan.  573;  Galena  etc.  E.  E. 
Co.  v.  Loomis,  13  111.  548,  56  Am.  Dec.  471;  Blake  v.  Winona  etc.  E. 
B.  Co.,  19  Minn.  418,  18  Am.  Eep.  345. 

832  Portland  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Eailroad  Co.,  46  Me.  69. 

833  Portland  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Boston  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  65  Me.  122. 

834  Eailroad  Commrs.  v.  Portland  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  63  Me.  269,  18 
Am.  Eep.  208;  State  v.  Y\  abash  etc.  Ey.  Co.,  83  Mo.  144;  Illinois 
Cential  Ey.  v.  People,  143  111.  434,  33  N.  E.  173,  19  L.  E.  A.  119; 
Davidson  v.  State,  4  Tex.  App.  545. 

835  Gladson  v.  Minnesota,  166  U.  S.  421,  17  S.  Ct.  627,  41  L.  ed. 
1064;  Lake  Shore  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Ohio,  173  IT.  S.  301,  19  S.  Ct.  465,  41 
L.  ed.  747. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  368 

missioner  merely  has  the  power  to  approve  or  disapprove  the 
abandonment  of  a  station,  his  consent  is  not  binding,  as  a  con- 
tract, upon  the  state.836  Statutes  regulating  the  speed  of  rail- 
road trains  are  not  objectionable  under  the  obligation  clause.837 
Other  instances  of  the  valid  exercise  of  the  police  power  with 
respect  to  railroads  are  laws  regulating  railroad  crossings;838 
requiring  trains  to  stop  on  approaching  another  railroad  cross- 
ing;839 or 'to  ring  a  bell  or  sound  a  whistle  on  approaching 
crossings;840  requiring  the  erection  of  fences  or  cattle- 
guards;841  requiring  the  maintenance  of  watchmen  at  certain 
points;842  prohibiting  the  carrying  of  freight  deemed  to  be 
detrimental  to  public  health,  morals,  or  safety,  and  making 
railroads  liable  as  insurers  of  life  and  limb  of  passengers;843 

836  State  v.  New  Haven  etc.  B.  E.  Co.,  43  Conn.  351. 

837  Erb  v.  Moraseh,  177  TJ.  S.  585,  20  S.  Ct.  819,  44  L.  ed.  897; 
Clark  v.  Boston  etc.  R.  E.,  64  N.  H.  323,  10  Atl.  676;  Chicago  etc. 
E.  E.  v.  Haggerty,  67  111.  113;  Chicago  etc.  E.  E.  v.  People,  105  111. 
657;  Bluedorn  v.  Missouri  Pac.  Ey.,  108  Mo.  239,  32  Am.  St.  Eep.  615, 
18  S.  W.  1103. 

838  New  York  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Bristol,  151  U.  S.  556,  14  S.  Ct. 
437,  3&  L.  ed.  269;  Philadelphia  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Southwestern  Pennsyl- 
vania E.  E.,  77  Pa.  St.  173;  Portland  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Deering, 
78  Me.  61,  2  Atl.  670,  57  Am.  Eep.  784. 

839  Chicago  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Joliet  etc.  E.  E.,  105  111.  105,  44  Am.  Eep. 
806. 

840  Galena  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Loomis,  13  111.  548,  54  Am.  Dec.  471; 
Galena  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Appleby,  28  111.  283. 

841  Minneapolis  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Emmons,  149  U.  S.  364,  13  S.  Ct. 
871,  37  L.  ed.  769;  Suydam  v.  Moore,  8  Barb.  358;  Waldron  v.  Eail- 
road  Co.,  8  Barb.  390;  New  Albany  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Tilton,  12  Ind.  3,  74 
Am.  Dee.  195;  Madison  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Whiteneck,  8  Ind.  217;  Ohio  etc. 
E.  E.  v.  McClelland,  25  111.  140;  Kansas  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Mower,  16  Kan. 
573;  Jones  v.  G.  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  16  Iowa,  6;  Indianapolis  etc.  E.  R. 
v.  Kerehevpl,  16  Ind.  84;  "Winona  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Waldron,  11  Minn. 
515,  88  Am.  Dec.  100;  Gorman  v.  Pacific  E.  E.  Co.,  26  Mo.  441,  72 
Am.  Dec.  220;  Blair  v.  Milwaukee  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  20  Wis.  254;  Penn- 
sylvania etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Eiblet,  66  Pa.  St.  164;  Thorpe  v.  Eutland 
etc.  E.  E.,  27  Vt.  147,  62  Am.  Dec.  625. 

842  Lake  Shore  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  C.  S.  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  30  Ohio  St. 
616;  Toledo  etc.  Ey.  Co.  v.  Jacksonville,  67  111.  37,  16  Am.  Eep.  611. 

843  Thorpe  v.  Eutland  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  27  Vt.  140,  62  Am.  Dec.  625; 
Nelson  v.  Vermont  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  26  Vt.  717. 


369 


Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 


making  railroads  liable  for  the  neglect  or  misconduct  of  their 
employees;844  rendering  railroads  absolutely  liable  for  damages 
caused  by  fire  started  from  sparks  from  their  locomotives845  or 
for  animals  killed  by  their  locomotives;846  giving  a  right  of 
action  to  the  personal  representative  of  one  killed  in  a  railroad 
accident.847 

The  police  power  cannot,  however,  be  used  to  cloak  regula- 
tions tending  to  impair  or  destroy  charter  powers  or  franchises, 
without  conserving  the  health,  morals  or  safety  of  the  public.848 
Accordingly  the  state  cannot  order  a  change  in  the  gauge  of  a 
railroad,849  or  require  a  railroad  to  keep  a  flagman  at  a  place 
where  there  is  no  unusual  danger.850  An  act  imposing  restric- 
tions upon  the  conveyance  of  land  to  railroads  impairs  the 
charter  obligation  and  is  void.851 

Amendment  or  Alteration  of  Charter. 

The  legislature  is  precluded  from  altering  or  amending  a 
corporate  charter  unless  such  power  be  reserved  by  the  act  of 
incorporation  or  by  some  prior  general  law.852  Such  a  reser- 
vation enters  into  and  becomes  a  part  of  the  charter  of  every 

844  Boston  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  State,  32i  N.  H.  215. 

845  Union  Pacific  Ey.  Co.  v.  De  Busk,  12  Colo.  294,  20  Pac.  752,  3 
L.  E.  A,  350;  Mathews  v.  St.  Louis  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  121  Mo.  298,  24  S. 
W.  591,  25  L.  E.  A.  161;  Lyman  v.  B.  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  58  Mass.  288; 
Bademacher  v.  M.  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  41  Iowa,  297,  20  Am.  Eep.  592; 
Mobile  etc.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Columbia  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  41  S.  C.  408,  44  Am. 
St.  Eep.  725,  19  S.  E.  858. 

846  Indianapolis  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Kereheval,  16  Ind.  84. 

847  Southwestern  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Paulk,  24  Ga.  356. 

848  Philadelphia  etc.  Ey.  Co.  v.  Bowers,  4  Houst.  506;  Town  of 
Lake  View  v.  Eose  Hill  Cemetery  Co.,  70  111.  191,  22  Am.  Eep.  71; 
Sloan  v.  Pacific  E.  E.,  €1  Mo.  24,  21  Am.  Eep.  397. 

849  State  v.  Eichmond  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  73  N.  C.  527,  21  Am.  Eep. 
473. 

850  Toledo  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Jacksonville,  67  111.  37,  16  Am.  Eep.  611. 

851  De  Graff  v.  St.  Paul  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  23  Minn.  144. 

852  Holyoke  Co.  v.  Lyman,  15  Wall.  511,  21  L.  ed.  133;  Greenwood 
v.  Freight  Co.,  105  U.  S.  17,  26  L.  ed.  961;  New  Jersey  v.  Yard,  95 

TJ.  S.  113,  24  L.  ed.  352. 

Notes  on  Constitution — 24 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  370 

corporation  organized  subject  to  it,833  and  no  question  of  the 
impairment  of  contract  obligations  can  arise  where  a  corpora- 
tion has  accepted  its  charter  subject  to  the  state's  power  to 
alter  or  amend  it.854  The  obligation  clause  does  not  prevent 
the  amendment  or  alteration  of  a  charter  with  the  consent  of 
the  corporation.855  There  is  nothing  to  preclude  the  waiver 
of  the  protection  of  this  clause  by  the  stockholders,856  and  this 
waiver  may  be  evidenced  by  an  express  request  for  the  amend- 
ment or  by  expressly  accepting,  or  acting  on  and  acquiescing 
in,  one  made  without  such  request.857  There  must,  however,  be 
an  acceptance  of  the  amendatory  act.858  If  an  amendment  is 
accepted  by  a  corporate  vote  as  an  amendment  to  the  original 
charter,  it  is  not  a  violation  of  the  charter.859     The  assent  re- 

853  Miller  v.  State,  15  Wall.  495,  21  L.  ed.  98;  Chicago  etc.  Ey. 
Co.  v.  Minnesota,  134  U.  S.  455,  10  S.  Ct.  462,  33  L.  ed.  970;  Hamilton 
Gaslight  etc.  Co.  v.  Hamilton  City,  146  U.  S.  270,  13  S.  Ct.  90,  36  L. 
ed.  963;  Pennsylvania  B.  E.  Co.  v.  Miller,  132  U.  S.  83,  10  S.  Ct.  34, 
33  L.  ed.  267;  Citizens'  Savings  Bank  v.  Owensboro,  173  TJ.  S.  644, 
19  S.  Ct.  530,  43  L.  ed.  840. 

854  Sioux  City  Street  Ey.  Co.  v.  Sioux  City,  138  U.  S.  108,  11  S. 
Ct.  226,  34  L.  ed.  898;  Bienville  etc.  Water  Co.  v.  Mobile,  186  TJ.  3. 
222,  22  S.  Ct.  820,  46  L.  ed.  1132. 

855  People  v.  Marshall,  1  Gilm.  672;  Commonwealth  v.  Jarvis,  1 
Mon.  5;  Monongahela  Nav.  Co.  v.  Coon,  6  Pa.  St.  375,  47  Am.  Dec. 

474;  Ehrenzeller  v.  Canal  Co.,  1  Eawle,  181;  Trustees  v.  Winston,  5 
Stew.  &  P.  17. 

856  State  v.  Montgomery    Light  Co.,  102  Ala.  594,  15  South.  347. 

857  Smead  v.  Indianapolis  etc.  Ey.  Co.,  11  Ind.  104;  Pennsylvania 
E.  E.  Co.  v.  Duncan,  111  Pa.  St.  352,  5  Atl.  742;  Monongahela  Bridge 
Co.  v.  Pittsburgh  etc.  Ey.  Co.,  114  Pa.  St.  478,  8  Atl.  233;  Attorney 
General  v.  Clergy  Soc,  10  Eich.  Eq.    604. 

858  Pingry  v.  Washburn,  1  Aik.  264,  15  Am.  Dec.  676;  Common- 
wealth v.  Cullen,  13  Pa.  St.  133,  53  Am.  Dec.  450;  Allen  v.  McKean, 
1  Sum.  276,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  229.     But  see  State  v.  Adams,  44  Mo.  570. 

859  Trustees  Dartmouth  College  v.  Woodward,  4  Wheat.  518,  1 
L.  ed.  629;  Mumma  v.  Potomac  Co.,  8  Pet.  286,  8  L.  ed.  945;  Penn- 
sylvania College  Cases,  13  Wall.  213,  20  L.  ed.  550;  Joy  v.  Jackson 
County,  11  Mich.  155;  Eiddle  v.  Locks  &  Canals,  7  Mass.  169;  Mc- 
Laren v.  Pennington,  1  Paige,  107;  Monongahela  Nav.  Co.  v.  Coor., 
6  Pa.  St.  379,  47  Am.  Dec.  474;  Commonwealth  v.  Cullen,  13  Pa.  St. 
133,  53  Am.  Dec.  450;  Woodford  v.  Union  Bank,  3  Cold.  498;  Za- 
brinskie  v.  Eailroad  Co.,  18  N.  J.  Eq.  186. 


371  Obligation  of  Contracts.    Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

lates  back  to  the  date  of  the  amendatory  law.860  Assent  can- 
not be  inferred  from  a  misuser  or  nonuser  of  a  corporation's 
franchise,861  although  a  willful  misuser  or  nonuser  of  its  fran- 
chise will  subject  a  corporation  to  dissolution.862  Where  the 
amendment  is  as  to  several  particulars,  the  acceptance  must  be 
made  as  it  is  offered  or  not  at  all,863  and  if  the  amendment  is 
accepted  upon  the  terms  prescribed,  it  becomes  a  compact  bind- 
ing upon  all  parties;864  but  an  amendment  is  never  binding 
without  acceptance,865  unless  the  power  be  reserved  in  the 
charter  or  by  general  law.866  The  charter  of  a  corporation  may 
even  be  repealed  by  an  amendment  accepted  by  the  corpora- 
tion.867 

The  rule  that  assent  renders  legislation  changing  a  corporate 
charter  valid  is  subject  to  the  qualification  that  such  legislation 
must  not  change  the  control  of  the  institution,  or  divert  the 
funds  to  a  use  inconsistent  with  the  original  purpose,868  and 
in  the  absence  of  reserved  power  to  alter  or  amend,  the  ac- 
ceptance, by  a  majority  of  the  stockholders,  of  a  material, 
radical,  and  fundamental  change  in  the  charter,  can  bind  only 
the  majority,  and  will  discharge  a  dissenting  subscriber  from 

860  Ehrenzeller  v.  Canal  Co.,  1  Eawle,  181. 

861  Eegents  v.  Williams,  9  Gill  &  J.  365,  31  Am.  Dec.  72. 

862  Mumma  v.  Potomac  Co.,  8  Pet.  287,  8  L.  ed.  945;  State  v. 
Bryce,  7  Ohio,  pt.  2,  83. 

863  Marietta  etc.  B.  E.  Co.  v.  Elliott,  10  Ohio  St.  57. 

864  Crease  v.  Babcock,  23  Pick.  334,  34  Am.  Dec.  61;  Iron  City 
Bank  v.  Pittsburgh,  37  Pa.  St.  340. 

865  Sage  v.  Dillard,  15  B.  Mon.  340;  Yeaton  v.  Bank,  21  Gratt. 
593;  Troy  v.  Rutland  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  17  Barb.  591;  White  v.  Eaii- 
road  Co.,  14  Barb.  559;  Mayor  etc.  v.  Norwich  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  109 
Mass.  103;  Thornton  v.  Marginal  F.  E.  Co.,  123  Mass.  32. 

866  Pennsylvania  College  Cases,  13  Wall.  213,  20  L.  ed.  550;  Tom- 
linson  v.  Jessup,  15  Wall.  459,  21  L.  ed.  204;  Miller  v.  State,  15 
Wall.  478,  21  L.  ed.  98;  Holyoke  Co.  v.  Lyman,  15  Wall.  500,  21  L. 
ed.  133;  Washington  Bridge  Co.  v.  State,  18  Conn.  64;  Enfield  T. 
B.  Co.  v.  Hartford  E.  E.  Co.,  17  Conn.  59;  Bronson  v.  Taylor,  33 
Conn.  116;  M.  &  E.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Commissioners,  37  N.  J.  228. 

867  Mobile  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  State,  29  Ala.  573;  Monongahela  Nav. 
Co.  v.  Coon,  6  Pa.  St.  379,  47  Am.  Dec.  474. 

868  Pennsylvania  College  Cases,  13  Wall.  213-220,  20  L.  ed.  550. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  372 

his  contract  of  subscription.869  The  legislature  cannot  in  iis 
amendatory  act  authorize  the  majority  to  accept  the  amendment 
against  the  will  of  the  minority.870  Where,  however,  the  change 
accepted  by  the  majority  merely  clothes  the  corporation  with 
privileges  and  immunities  in  furtherance  of  the  corporate  ob- 
ject, a  stockholder  cannot  make  the  change  an  excuse  for  avoid- 
ing his  obligations.871  Where  the  stockholders  have  subscribed 
under  a  charter  allowing  the  majority  to  bind  all,  there  can  be 
no  objection  to  the  majority  acceptance  of  an  amendment.872 
Instances  of  fundamental  changes  within  this  rule  are : 
amendments  altering  the  general  course  or  direction  of  a  rail- 
road authorized  by  charter;873  changing  the  terminus  of  the 
road  as  fixed  by  the  charter;874  authorizing  consolidation  with 
another  corporation;875  changing  the  visitorial  power  in  an 
eleemosynary  corporation;876  reducing  the  minimum  number 
of  subscribed  shares  necessary,  thus  rendering  one  liable  on  his 
subscription.877  Any  amendment  radically  changing  the  orig- 
inal scheme  is  fundamental.878     The  test  seems  to  be  whether 

869  Clearwater  v.  Meredith,  1  Wall.  40,  17  L.  ed.  604;  Bailway  Co. 
v.  Allerton,  18  Wall.  233,  21  L.  ed.  902;  Printing  House  v.  Trustees, 
104  U.  S.  711,  26  L.  ed.  902;  Mowrey  v.  Indianapolis  etc.  K.  B.  Co., 
4  Biss.  86,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9891;   Ashton  v.  Burbank,  2  Dill.  435. 

870  New  Orleans  etc.  By.  Co.  v.  Harris,  27  Miss.  517. 

871  Fry  v.  Lexington  etc.  B.  B.  Co.,  2  Met.  (Ky.)  322;  Waring  v. 
Mayor  etc.,  24  Ala.  201;  Everhart  v.  Westchester  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  28 
Pa.  St.  339;  Poughkeepsie  etc.  Plank-Eoad  Co.  v.  Griffin,  24  N.  Y. 
150;  Fall  Eiver  Iron  Works  v.  Old  Colony  E.  E.  Co.,  5  Allen,  221; 
Peoria  v.  Preston,  35  Iowa,  115. 

87  2  Witter  v.  Mississippi  etc.  E.  E.,  20  Ark.  463. 

873  Hester  v.  Memphis  etc.  E.  B.,  32  Miss.  380;  Winter  v.  Muskogee 
E.  E.  Co.,  11  Ga.  45;  Buffalo  etc.  B.  E.  Co.  v.  Pottle,  23  Barb.  21. 

874  Marietta  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Elliott,  10  Ohio  St.  57;  Middlesex  Turn- 
pike  Co.  v.  Locke,  8  Mass.  267;  Plankroad  etc.  Co.  v.  Arndt,  31  Pa. 
St.  317;  Thompson  v.  Guion,  5  Jones  Eq.  113. 

875  Clearwater  v.  Meredith,  1  Wall.  40,  17  L.  ed.  604;  Pearce  v. 
Madison  E.  E.  Co.,  21  How.  441,  16  L.  ed.  184;  Mowrey  v.  Indian- 
apolis etc.  B.  B.  Co.,  4  Biss.  83,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9891;  Tuttle  v.  Mich- 
igan Air-Line,  35  Mich.  247;  New  Jersey  etc.  Co.  v.  Strait,  35  N.  J. 
L.  322. 

876  Printing  House  v.  Trustees,  104  U.  S.  727,  26  L.  ed.  902. 

877  Old  Town  E.  B.  Co.  v.  Veazie,  39  Me.  571. 

878  Black  v.  Deleware  &  Earitan  Canal  Co.,  24  N.  J.  Eq.  455. 


373  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

the  general  interests  of  the  corporation  have  been  sacrificed  by 
the  change,  and  whether  the  profits  have  been  lessened.879 

The  legislature  cannot  amend  a  charter  so  as  to  restrict  the 
use  of  corporate  property,880  nor  give  property  to  a  public  pur- 
pose for  a  use  entirely  different  and  inconsistent  with  the  orig- 
inal use.881  Nor  can  an  officer  of  a  corporation  be  deprived  of 
his  office  by  an  amendment  of  the  charter.8S2  A  public  statute 
which  provides  how  charters  may  be  amended  is  not  a  con- 
tract.883 A  power  to  alter  or  amend  is  not  ordinarily  a  power 
to  repeal  or  a  power  to  destroy.884  The  legislature  may  modify 
or  repeal  a  charter  before  its  acceptance,  and  before  rights  have 
been  acquired  under  it.885 

Reserved  Power  to  Alter  or  Amend. 


The  reservation  of  this  power  in  the  state  constitution,  or 
in  general  laws  on  the  subject  of  corporations  or  in  the  special 
act  of  incorporation,  relieves  amendatory  legislation  from  the 
operation  of  this  clause  of  the  constitution.886     Acts  of  incor- 

879  Fry  v.  Lexington  etc.  E.  B.  Co.,  2  Met.  (Ky.)  322;  Wilson 
v.  Wills  Valley  E.  E.  Co.,  33  Ga.  466;  Irvine  v.  Turnpike  Co.,  2  Penr. 
&  W.  474;  Barrett  v.  Alton  etc.  E.  E.,  13  111.  504. 

880  Commonwealth  v.  Bacon,  13  Bush   (Ky),  210,  26  Am.  Eep.  189. 

881  Jacksonville  v.  Jacksonville   Co.,  67   111.  540. 

8S2  Allen  v.  MeKean,  1  Sum.  276,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  229. 

883  State  v.  New  Haven  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  43  Conn.  351. 

884  Hartford  Br.  Co.  v.  East  Hartford,  16  Conn.  149. 

885  Louisville  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Kentucky,  161  U.  S.  674,  16  S. 
Ct.  714,  40  L.  ed.  849;  Pearsall  v.  Great  Northern  Ey.  Co.,  161  U.  S. 
659,  16  S.  Ct.  705,  40  L.  ed.  838;  Galveston  etc.  Ey.  v.  Texas,  170 
U.  S.  239,  18  S.  Ct.  603,  42  L.  ed.  1017;  Cincinnati  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v. 
Clifford,  113  Ind.  460,  15  N.  E.  524;  Chesapeake  etc.  Canal  Co.  v. 
Baltimore  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  4  Gill  &  J.  1;  State  v.  Baltimore  etc.  E.  E. 
Co.,  12  Gill  &  J.  399,  38  Am.  Dec.  319;  In  re  New  York  Cable  Ey. 
Co.,  40  Hun,  1. 

*886  Sherman  v.  Smith,  1  Black,  592,  17  L.  ed.  163;  Pennsylvania 
College  Cases,  13  Wall.  212,  20  L.  ed.  550;  Miller  v.  State,  15  Wall. 
495,  21  L.  ed.  98;  Holyoke  Co.  v.  Lyman,  15  Wall.  522,  21  L.  ed.  133; 
Stone  v.  Wisconsin,  94  U.  S.  1S2,  24  L.  ed.  102;  Eailway  Co.  v.  Phila- 
delphia, 101  U.  S.  539,  25  L.  ed.  912;  Close  v.  Glenwood  Cemetery, 
107  TJ.  S.  476,  2  S.  Ct.  274,  27  L.  ed.  408;  Sioux  City  Street  Ey.  v. 
Sioux  City,  138  U.  8.  108,  11  S.  Ct.  226,  34  L.  ed.  898;  Waters-Pierce 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  374 

poration  subsequent  to  the  adoption  of  a  state  constitution  are 
to  be  construed  as  if  containing  the  constitutional  provisions 
applicable  to  them,887  and  a  corporation  takes  its  charter  sub- 
ject to  such  provisions  in  the  constitution  and  to  prior  general 
laws,  and  cannot  object  to  future  changes  therein;888  by  accept- 
ing its  charter  under  such  circumstances  the  corporation  as- 
sents to  the  reservation.889 

When  the  power  is  attempted  to  be  exercised  it  is  immaterial 
how  harshly  it  may  affect  the  particular  case  or  the  parties  in- 
terested;890 the  exercise  of  the  power  cannot  be  affected  by  the 
fact  that  injustice  may  be  done.891  Where  the  power  to  alter 
or  amend  is  not  reserved  in  the  state  constitution  the  question 
is  always,  whether  the  legislature  intended  it  to  inhere  in  the 
charter  itself,  and  it  requires  strong  implication  to  make  a  re- 
serving act  applicable  to  subsequent  supplements  to  existing 
charters.892  A  provision  in  a  corporate  charter  that  it  shall 
not  be  altered  in  any  other  manner  than  by  an  act  of  the  legis- 
lature is  equivalent  to  an  express  reservation  to  the  state  of  the 
right  to  alter  or  amend  at  will.893 

Oil  Co.  v.  Texas,  177  U.  S.  47,  20  S.  Ct.  518,  44  L.  ed.  657;  Bienville 
Water  etc.  Co.  v.  Mobile,  186  U.  S.  222,  22  S.  Ct.  820,  46  L.  ed.  1132. 

887  Railway  Co.  v.  Philadelphia,  101  U.  S.  539,  25  L.  ed.  912;  Mayor 
v.  Twenty-third  Street  By.  Co.,  113  N.  Y.  318,  21  N.  E.  62;  State  v. 
Hilbert,  72  Wis.  193,  39  N.  W.  329. 

888  Spring  Valley  Waterworks  v.  Schottler,  110  U.  S.  348,  4  S. 
Ct.  48,  28  L.  ed.  173;  Chicago  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Minnesota,  134  U.  S. 
455,  10  S.  Ct.  462,  33  L.  ed.  970;  Pennsylvania  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Miller, 
132  U.  S.  83,  10  S.  Ct.  34,  33  L.  ed.  267;  Citizens'  Savings  Bank  v. 
Owensboro,  173  U.  S.  644,  19  S.  Ct.  530,  43  L.  ed.  840. 

889  Hamilton  Gaslight  Co.  v.  Hamilton  City,  146  TJ.  S.  270,  13  S 
Ct.  90,  36  L.  ed.  963;  People  v.  Cook,  148  TJ.  S.  411,  13  S.  Ct.  645, 
37  L.  ed.  498;  Gulf  etc.  "  E.  Co.  v.  Hewes,  183  IT.  S.  71,  22  S.  Ct. 
26,  46  L.  ed.  86;  Louisville  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Kentucky,  183  U.  S.  516, 
22  S.  Ct.  95,  46  L.  ed.  298. 

890  Hamilton  Gaslight  Co.  V.  Hamilton  City,  146  U.  S.  270,  13 
S.  Ct.  90,  36  L.  ed.  963. 

891  Bienville  Water  etc.  Co.  v.  Mobile,  186  U.  S.  223,  22  S.  Ct. 
820,  46  L.  ed.  1132. 

892  New  Jersey  v.  Yard,  95  U.  S.  113,  24  L.  ed.  352. 

893  Pennsylvania  College  Cases,  13  Wall.  214,  20  L.  ed.  550; 
Houston  v.  Jefferson  College,  63  Pa.  St.  428;  Commonwealth  v.  Boa- 
Ball,  3  Whart.  559. 


375  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

If  the  power  is  effectually  reserved  the  legislature  may  re- 
peal, alter  or  modify  a  charter  according  to  the  language  of  the 
reservation.894  The  creditors  of  a  corporation  cannot  object 
to  an  amendment  or  alteration  pursuant  to  this  reserved 
power,895  for  all  persons  dealing  with  a  corporation  are  bound 
to  take  notice  of  the  reservation  of  power  to  amend  or  revoke 
its  charter.896  The  alteration  may  be  made  in  the  charter  it- 
self or  by  a  general  statute,897  or  by  a  change  in  the  state  con- 
stitution,898 and  the  alteration  is  binding  whether  the  corpora- 
tion assents  or  not.899 

The  reserved  power  may  be  exercised  at  the  will  of  the  legis- 
lature, notwithstanding  the  words  "at  the  pleasure  of  the  legis- 
lature" are  not  used  in  the  reserving  clause,900  and  this  legis- 
lative discretion  cannot  be  interfered  with  by  the  courts.901 
But  where  a  railroad  is  incorporated  subject  to  the  consent  of 
a  municipal  council,  reserving  the  right  in  the  legislature  to 
alter  or  amend,  the  municipal  council  has  no  such  right  under 

894  Allen  v.  McKean,  1  Sum.  276,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  229;  Crease  v. 
Babcock,  40  Mass.  334,  34  Am.  Dec.  61;  Perrin  v.  Oliver,  1  Minn.  202; 
Delaware  E.   B.  Co.  v.  Thorp,  5  Harr.  454;   McLaren  v.  Pennington, 

I  Paige,  102;  Monongahela  Nav.  Co.  v.  Coon,  6  Pa.  St.  379,  47  Am. 
Dec.  474;  Ferguson  v.  Miners'  etc.  Bank,  3  Sneed,  609;  Stephen  v. 
Smith,  29  Vt.  160;  Butler  v.  Walker,  80  111.  345. 

895  West  Wisconsin  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Supervisors,  93  U.  S.  595,  23  L. 
ed.  814;  Bead  v.  Frankfort  Bank,  23  Me.  318. 

896  Macon  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Gibson,  85  Ga.  1,  21  Am.  St.  Eep.  135, 

II  S.  E.  443. 

897  Beer  Company  v.  Massachusetts,  97  IT.  S.  25,  24  L.  ed.  989; 
Pennsylvania  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Miller,  132  U.  S.  83,  10  S.  Ct.  34,  33  L. 
ed.  267;  Looker  v.  Maynard,  179  U.  S.  54,  21  S.  Ct.  21,  45  L.  ed, 
179;  State  v.  Commissioners,  38  N.  J.  472;  Bangor  E.  E.  v.  Smith, 
47  Me.  34. 

S98  Spring  Valley  Waterworks  v.  Schottler,  110  TJ.  S.  351,  4  S.  Ct. 
48,  38  L.  ed.  173;  In  re  Lee's  Bank,  21  N.  Y.  9. 

899  Hyatt  v.  Whipple,  37  Barb.  595;  Hyatt  v.  Esmond,  37  Barb. 
601;  Mayor  v.  N.  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  109  Mass.  103;  Attorney  General  v. 
Eailroad  Co.,   35  Wis.   425. 

900  Hamilton  Gaslight  Co.  v.  Hamilton  City,  146  U.  S.  271,  13 
S.  Ct.  90,  36  L.  ed.  963. 

soi  Spring  Valley  Waterworks  v.  Schottler,  110  U.  S.  355,  4  9. 
Ct.  48,  28  L.  ed.  173. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  376 

the  reservation  after  it  has  once  given  its  consent.902  The 
power  to  alter  or  modify  is  not  exhausted  by  one  alteration.903 
While  a  corporate  charter  is  only  a  quasi  contract  where  the 
power  to  alter  or  revoke  it  is  reserved  to  the  legislature,904 
yet  this  reserved  power  must  be  exercised  in  subjection  to  the 
provisions  of  the  federal  constitution;905  and  reasonably,  in 
good  faith,  and  consistent  with  the  object  of  the  incorpora- 
tion.90"6 It  is  not  competent  for  the  legislature,  against  the 
will  of  some  of  the  stockholders,  to  change  the  fundamental 
character  of  the  corporation,907  or  to  take  away  or  intermeddle 
with  property  rights,  or  annul  contracts  entered  into  by  a  cor- 
poration,908 or  to  authorize  the  taking  of  corporate  property 
for  public  use  without  compensation.909  Ordinarily,  the  ques- 
tion whether  the  exercise  of  the  reserved  power  by  the  legisla- 
ture is  expedient  is  not  judicial;010  but  where  the  power  is 

902  City  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Citizens'  E.  E.  Co.,  166  U.  S.  563,  17  S.  Ct. 
653,  41  L.  ed.  1114. 

903  People  v.  Hills,  46  Barb.  340;  Proprietors  v.  Haskell,  7  Me. 
474;  State  v.  Commissioners,  37  N.  J.  L.  228;  Morris  etc.  E.  E.  Co. 
v.  Commissioners,  37  N.  J.  L.  228. 

904  Wagner  Free  Institute  v.  Philadelphia,  132  Pa.  St.  612,  19 
Am.  St.  Eep.  613,  19  Atl.  297. 

905  People  v.  O'Brien,  111  N.  Y.  1,  7  Am.  St.  Eep.  684,  18  N. 
E.  702,  2  L.  E.  A.  255.     And  see  Eailroad  Tax  Cases,  13  Fed.  754. 

906  Shields  v.  Ohio,  95  U.  S.  324,  24  L.  ed.  357;  Hill  v.  Glascow 
E.  E.  Co.,  41  Fed.  616;  United  States  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  50 
Fed.  36;  San  Joaquin  etc.  Co.  v.  Stanislaus  County,  113  Fed.  930; 
Leep  v.  Bailway  Co.,  58  Ark.  433,  41  Am.  St.  Eep.  127,  25  S.  W.  83, 
23  L.  E.  A.  264. 

907  Buffalo  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Dudley,  14  N.  Y.  336;  Troy  etc.  E.  E. 
Co.  v.  Kerr,  17  Barb.  581;  White  v.  Eailroad  Co.,  14  Barb.  559;  StaU 
v.  Adams,  44  Mo.  576;  Eailroad  Co.  v.  Veazie,  39  Me.  571. 

908  Sinking  Fund  Cases,  99  U.  S.  721,  25  L.  ed.  504:  Pearsall  v. 
Great  Northern  Ey.  Co.,  161  U.  S.  660,  16  S.  Ct.  708,  40  L.  ed.  838; 
Feople  ex  rel.  Schurz  v.  Cook,  148  U.  S.  397,  13  S.  Ct.  645,  37  L.  ed. 
498;  Allen  v.  McKean,  1  Sum.  276,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  229;  Commissioner* 
v.  Holyoke  Water  Power  Co.,  104  Mass.  448,  6  Am.  Eep.  250;  Black 
Eiver  Imp.  Co.  v.  Holway,  87  Wis.  587,  59  N.  W.  127. 

0(i9  Miller  v.  Eailroad  Co.,  21  Barb.  513. 

9io  Greenwood  v.  Freight  Co.,  105  U.  S.  22,  26  L.  ed.  961;  Spring 
Valioy  Waterworks  v.  Schottler,  110  U.  S.  355,  4  S.  Ct.  50,  28  L.  ed. 
173, 


377  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

limited  to  alterations  that  shall  work  no  injustice,  it  is  for  the 
courts  to  determine  whether  injustice  has  been  done.911 

This  reserved  power  becomes,  by  operation  of  law,  a  part 
of  every  contract  or  mortgage  entered  into  by  a  corporation,912 
but  the  power  does  not  extend  to  the  alteration  of  contracts 
made  pursuant  to  charter  powers.913  Where  the  reservation  is 
contained  in  a  statute  all  charters  subsequently  granted  are 
subject  to  this  power,914  and  where  the  power  to  alter  is  re- 
served, the  state  may  from  time  to  time  designate  the  agents 
or  organs,  and  prescribe  the  manner  in  which  the  power  shall 
be  exercised.915 

Extent  and  Exercise  of  Reserved  Power. 

Where  the  power  to  alter  a  corporate  charter  is  reserved  it 
may  be  exercised  to  almost  any  extent  to  carry  into  effect  the 
original  purposes  of  the  grant  or  to  secure  due  administration 
of  the  corporation's  affairs;916  but  it  must  be  exercised  reason- 
ably, in  good  faith,  and  consistent  with  the  object  of  incorpora- 
tion,917 and  it  should  not  be  allowed  to  extend  beyond  the  terms 

911  Iron  City  Bank  v.  Pittsburgh,  37  Pa.  St.  340. 

912  Macon  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Gibson,  85  Ga.  1,  21  Am.  St.  Eep.  135, 
11  S.  E.  443. 

913  Pennsylvania  College  Cases,  13  Wall.  214,  20  L.  ed.  550;  Ter- 
rett  v.  Taylor,  9  Cr.  43;  Peik  v.  Chicago  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  94  U.  S. 
164,  24  L.  eel.  97;  Bank  v.  McVeigh,  20  Gratt.  457. 

914  Sherman  v.  Smith,  1  Black,  587,  17  L.  ed.  163;  Miller  v.  State, 
15  Wall.  495,  21  L.  ed.  98;  Suydam  v.  Moore,  8  Barb.  358;  Griffin  v. 
Kentucky  Ins.  Co.,  3  Bush,  592,  96  Am.  Dec.  259;  Central  Banking 
Co.  v.  State,  54  Ga.  409;  New  Orleans  v.  Santa  Anna's  Asylum,  31 
La.  Ann.  295;  Watson  Seminary  v.  Pike  County  Court,  149  Mo.  67, 
50  S.  W.  882,  45  L.  E.  A.  675;  State  v.  Commissioners,  37  N.  J.  L. 
237;  Fort  Plain  Bridge  v.  Smith,  30  N.  Y.  44. 

915  In  re  Eeciprocity  Bank,  22  N.  Y.  9,  29  Barb.  369. 

916  Miller  v.  State,  15  Wall.  498,  21  L.  ed.  98;  Holyoke  Co.  v. 
Lyman,  15  Wall.  519,  21  L.  ed.  133;  St.  Louis  etc.  Ey.  v.  Paul,  64 
Ark.  87,  62  Am.  St.  Eep.  157,  40  S.  W.  706,  37  L.  E,  A.  504;  Macon 

etc.  Ey.  v.  Gibson,  85  Ga,  15,  21  Am.  St.  Eep.  139,  11  S.  E.  443; 
Attorney  General  v.  Looker,  111  Mich.  508,  69  N.  W.  932;  State  v. 
Brown  etc.  Co.,  18  E.  I.  26,  25  Atl.  250,  17  L.  E.  A.  856. 

917  Shields  v.  Ohio,  95  U.  S.  324,  24  L.  ed.  357;  Hill  v.  Glascow 
E.   E.   Co.,  41   Fed.   616;   United   States   v.   Western   Union   Tel.   Co., 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  378 

in  which  it  is  expressed.918  It  is  no  objection  to  an  amenda- 
tory law  that  it  may  harshly  affect  the  particular  case  or  the 
parties  interested,919  and  the  power  is  not  affected  by  the  fact 
that  its  exercise  might  work  an  injustice.920  The  courts  can- 
not interfere  with  the  legislative  discretion  in  amending  a 
charter  within  the  scope  of  the  power  reserved.921 

Where  the  right  to  amend  is  statutory,  and  not  constitutional, 
it  may  be  waived  by  a  subsequent  legislature,  and  the  intent 
in  each  ease  must  govern.922  So  an  act  amending  a  charter 
and  providing  that  it  shall  not  thereafter  be  altered  without 
the  concurrence  of  the  corporation,  operates  as  a  waiver  of  the 
statutory  reservation.923  But  the  mere  nonuser  of  the  power 
does  not  constitute  a  waiver.924  The  power  to  alter  or  modify 
is  not  exhausted  by  one  alteration.925 

Where  this  power  is  reserved,  a  corporation  authorized  to 
maintain  a  dam  across  a  river  may  be  required  to  construct  and 
maintain  a  fishway  at  the  same  point,926  or  the  trustees  of  a 
charitable  educational  institution  may  be  required  to  lease  a 
part  of  its  unused  lands  to  county  school  commissioners*927  A 
charter  exemption  from  or  commutation  of  taxation  may  be 

50  Fed.  36;  Leep  v.  Eailway  Co.,  58  Ark.  433,  41  Am.  St.  Rep.  127, 
25  S.  W.  83,  23  L.  E.  A.  264. 

918  New  Jersey  v.  Yard,  95  U.  S.  113,  24  L.  ed.  352. 

919  Hamilton  Gaslight  Co.  v.  Hamilton  City,  146  U.  S.  27i>,  11 
S.  Ct.  90,  36  L.  ed.  963. 

920  Bienville  Water  etc.  Co.  v.  Mobile,  186  TJ.  S.  223,  22  S.  Ct. 
820,  46  L.  ed.  1132. 

921  Spring  Valley  Waterworks  v.  Schottler,  110  TJ.  S.  355,  4  S. 
Ct.  48,  28  L.  ed.  173;  Greenwood  v.  Freight  Co.,  105  TJ.  S.  22,  26 
L.  ed.  961. 

922  New  Jersey  v.  Yard,  95  TJ.  S.  Ill,  24  L.  ed.  352;  Hancock  v. 
Singer  Mfg.  Co.,  62  N.  J.  L.  328,  14  Atl.  847,  42  L.  E.  A.  852. 

923  Louisville  Gas  Co.  v.  Citizens'  Gas  Co.,  115  TJ.  S.  698,  6  S.  Ct. 
265,  29  L.  ed.  510. 

924  Chicago  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Iowa,  94  TJ.  S.  162,  24  L.  ed.  94. 

925  People  v.  Hills,  46  Barb.  340;  Proprietors  v.  Haskell,  7  M*. 
474;  State  v.  Commissioner,  37  N.  J.  L.  228. 

926  Holyoke  Water  Power  Co.  v.  Lyman,  15  Wall.  500,  21  L.  ed. 
133,  affirming  104  Mass,  448,  6  Am.  Eep.  250. 

927   Webster  v.  Cambridge  Seminary,  78  Md.  204,  20  Atl.  26. 


379  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

withdrawn,928  or  the  method  of  taxation  may  be  changed.929  A 
different  tax  may  be  imposed  than  that  stipulated  in  the 
charter,930  or  a  right  to  assess  lands  for  improvements  may 
be  withdrawn.931  A  charter  provision  authorizing  corporate 
directors  to  fix  rates  of  charges  is  subject  to  change  under  a 
general"  reservation  of  the  power  to  alter  or  amend.932 

The  reserved  power  extends  to  an  amendment  giving  the 
minority  stockholders  representation  on  the  board  of  directors, 
although  formerly  the  majority  could  elect  a  full  board.933  A 
statute  fixing  the  individual  liability  of  stockholders  is  valid, 
and  applies  to  existing  corporations.934  The  stockholders  may 
be  made  personally  liable  for  all  debts  until  the  entire  capital 
stock  is  paid  in,935  or  the  legislature  may  provide  that  the  di- 
rectors of  an  insolvent  corporation  shall  be  primarily  liable 
for  the  corporate  debts  whereas  before  they  were  only  second- 
arily liable.936     Where  the  power  is  reserved,  the  legislature 

928  Tomlinson  v.  Jessup,  15  Wall.  454,  24  L.  ed.  204;  Kailroad  Co. 
v.  Maine,  96  U.  S.  511,  29  L.  ed.  836;  Louisville  Water  Co.  v.  Clark, 
143  U.  S.  12,  12  S.  Ct.  349,  36  L.  ed.  55;  Citizens'  Bank  v.  Owenboro, 
173  IL  S.  645,  19  S.  Ct.  533,  43  L.  ed.  840;  Covington  v.  Kentucky, 
173  "U.  S.  239,  19  S.  Ct.  386,  43  L.  ed.  679;  Hewitt  v.  New  York  etc. 
B,  E.  Co.,  12  Blatchf.  467,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6443;  City  v.  Metropolitan 
Bank,  27  La.  Ann.  648;  State  v.  Maine  Central  E.  E.  Co.,  66  Mo. 
505;  State  v.  Eailroad  Co.,  44  Md.  165;  State  v.  Mayor,  31  N.  J.  L. 
575,  86  Am.  Dec.  240;  State  Board  v.  Patterson  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  50 
N.  J.  L.  450,  14  Atl.  612;  Commonwealth  v.  Fayette  Co.  E.  E.  Co., 
55  Pa.  St.  452;  Iron  City  Bank  v.  Pittsburgh,  37  Pa.  St.  345. 

929  Dubuque  v.  Illinois  Central  E.  E.  Co.,  39  Iowa,  94. 

930  Iron  City  Bank  v.  Pittsburgh,  37  Pa.  St.  340. 

931  Marion  etc.  Co.  v.  Sleeth,  53  Ind.  41. 

932  Chicago  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Iowa,  94  U.  S.  162,  24  L.  ed.  94;  St. 
Louis  etc.  Ey.  Co.  v.  Gill,  54  Ark.  101,  15  S.  W.  18,  16  L.  E.  A.  787; 
Spring  Valley  Waterworks  v.  Schottler,  110  U.  S.  347,  4  S.  Ct.  48,  28 
L.  ed.  173;  Attorney  General  v.  Eailroad  Cos.,  35  Wis.  563;  Mobile 
etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Steiner,  61  Ala.  592;  Spring  Valley  Waterworks  v. 
Board  of  Supervisors,  61  Cal.  5. 

933  Attorney  General  v.  Looker,  111  Mich.  501,  69  N.   W.  930. 

934  Sherman  v.  Smith,  1  Black,  587,  17  L.  ed.  163;  In  re  Eeci- 
procity  Bank,  20  Barb.  369;  In  re  Lee's  Bank,  21  N.  Y.  14;  Bailey 
v.  Hollister,  26  N.  Y.  112;  In  re  Empire  City  Bank,  18  N.  Y.  199. 

935  Butler  v.  Walker,  8  Chic.  L.  N.  92. 

936  Falconer  v.  Campbell,  2  McLean,  195,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4620. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  380 

may  prohibit  insolvent  corporations  from  giving  preferences,937 
or  may,  as  against  subsequent  creditors,  permit  assignments  for 
the  benefit  of  creditors.938  If  the  interests  of  the  creditors  de- 
mand it,  the  legislature  may  remove  the  corporate  assets  from 
the  custody  of  the  trustees  and  place  them  in  the  custody  of  a 
state  officer,939  or  may  authorize  a  receiver  to  make  assess- 
ments on  premium  notes  instead  of  the  directors  ;940  but  it  can- 
not appoint  additional  trustees.941  The  payment  of  dividends 
is  also  subject  to  legislative  regulation  under  this  power,  and  a 
corporation  may  be  required  to  pay  the  excess  of  the  dividend 
instead  of  one-third  of  the  net  profits.942 

Under  the  reserved  power  to  alter  or  amend,  the  legislature 
may  make  any  alterations  or  amendments  which  do  not  defeat 
or  substantially  impair  the  object  of  grants  or  rights  vested 
thereunder.943  Eights  acquired  which  do  not  constitute  part 
of  the  contract  of  incorporation,  however,  stand  upon  a  differ- 
ent footing.944  Accordingly  a  contractual  exemption  from  tax- 
ation upon  consideration  of  certain  payments  cannot  be  changed 
under  the  reserved  power,  so  as  to  continue  the  obligation  in 
full  and  yet  withdraw  the  exemption,945  and  the  imposition  of 
a  tax  contrary  to  a  charter  exemption  is  not  a  legitimate  exer- 
cise of  the  reserved  power  merely  to  dissolve  a  corporation.946 
New  duties  and  liabilities  may,  however,  be  imposed  by  the 
legislature  in   the  exercise  of  its  reserved  power,947  and  the 

937  Robinson  v.  Gardiner,  18   Gratt.  509. 

938  Denny  v.  Bennett,  128  U.  S.  495,  9  S.  Ct.  136,  32  L.  ed.  491. 

939  Lathrop  v.   Stedman,   42   Conn.   583. 

940  Hyatt  v.  McMahon,  25  Barb.  457. 

941  Sage  v.  Dillard,  15  B.  Mon.  340. 

942  Massachusetts  Gen.  Hosp.  v.  State  etc.  Ins.  Co.,  70  Mass.  227. 

943  Holyoke  etc.  Co.  v.  Lyman,  15  Wall.  522,  21  L.  ed.  133;  Close 
v.  Glenwood  Cemetery,  107  U.  S.  476,  2  S.  Ct.  267,  27  L.  ed.  408; 
New  York  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Bristol,  151  U.  S.  567,  14  S.  Ct.  437,  38 
L.  ed.  269. 

944  Maine  Central  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Maine,  96  U.  S.  510,  24  L.  ed.  836. 

945  Stearns  v.  Minnesota,  179  U.  S.  240,  21  S.  Ct.  73,  45  L.  ed. 
162;  Duluth  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  St.  Louis  County,  179  U.  S.  304,  21 
S.  Ct.  124,  45  L.  ed.  201. 

946  Asylum  v.  New  Orleans,  105  TJ.  S.  369,  26  L.  ed.  1128. 
947  Atchison  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Matthews,  174  U.  S.  104,  19  S.  Ct. 
609,  43  L.  ed.  909. 


381  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

corporate  management  ma}-  be  changed.943  Burdens  connected 
with  the  grant  ma)'-  be  imposed  by  the  legislature,949  and  rights 
in  franchises  may  be  diminished.950 

Instances  of  valid  laws  imposing  new  duties  or  liabilities  are : 
laws  requiring  railroads  to  erect  depots,951  or  requiring  several 
railroads  to  unite  in  erecting  a  station  in  a  city;952  authoriz- 
ing another  company  to  lay  a  similar  track,  or  to  use  the  track 
of  the  first  company  upon  making  compensation  for  wear  and 
tear;953  requiring  railroad  companies  to  raise  or  lower  high- 
ways across  their  tracks;954  to  fence  their  tracks,955  or  to  con- 
struct cattle-guards  ;956  directing  excavations  and  embankments 
to  be  made,957  or  requiring  the  widening  of  a  bridge  over  an 
excavation.958 

A  statute  permitting  each  stockholder  to  cumulate  his  votes 
upon  any  one  or  more  candidates  for  directors  is  within  the 
reserved  power  of  the  state.959  A  corporation  may  also  be  re- 
quired by  subsequent  statute  to  pay  its  employees  weekly.960 
The  legislature  may  require  a  government  aided  railroad  to 
maintain  a  sinking  fund,  although  the  original  charter  did  not 
so  require,961  or  may  increase  the  number  of  directors  to  which 
a  city  is  entitled  in  consideration  for  aid  given.962     A  charter 

948  Close  v.  Glenwood  Cemetery,  107  U.  S.  466,  2  S.  Ct.  267,  27 
L.  ed.  408. 

949  English  v.  New  Haven  Co.,  32  Conn.  240. 

950  Perrin  v.  Oliver,  1  Minn.  202. 

951  Commonwealth  v.  Eastern  E.  E.  Co.,  103  Mass.  254,  4  Am. 
Eep.  555. 

952  Mayor  v.  N.  &  W.  E.  E.  Co.,  109  Mass.  103. 

953  Metropolitan  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Highland  Ey.  Co.,  118  Mass.  290. 

954  City  of  Eoxbury  v.  Eailroad  Co.,  6  Cush.  424. 

955  Staats  v.  Hudson  Eiver  E.  E.  Co.,  3  Keyes,  196. 

956  Bulkley  v.  New  York  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  27  Conn.  479. 

957  Fitchburg  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Grand  Junction  E.  E.  Co.,  86  Mass.  198; 
Albany  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Brownell,  24  N.  Y.  345. 

958  English  v.  New  Haven  Co.,  32  Conn.  240. 

959  Looker  v.  Maynard,  179  U.   S.  54,  21   S.  Ct.   21,  45  L.   ed.   79, 

960  State  v.  Brown  etc.  Co.,  18  E.  I.  24,  25  Atl.  249,  17  L.  E.  A. 
856. 

961  Sinking  Fund  Cases,  99  U.  S.   748,  25  L.  ed.  504. 

962  Miller  v.  State,  15  Wall.  493,  21  L.   ed.  98. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  01.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  382 

provision  requiring  the  consent  of  a  majority  to  levy  a  pew  tax 
may  also  be  modified  under  this  power.963 

Power  to  Repeal. 

The  reservation  of  power  to  repeal  or  revoke  corporate 
charters  is  valid.964  If  the  power  to  repeal  depends  on  the 
abuse  or  misuse  of  corporate  privileges,  it  is  not  necessary  that 
such  abuse  or  misuse  should  be  judicially  ascertained,965  and 
the  forfeiture  of  a  corporation's  license  to  do  business  in  a  state, 
for  violation  of  the  act  under  which  the  license  was  given,  vio- 
lates no  contract  obligation.966  An  act  of  incorporation  may 
be  repealed  by  implication  where  the  power  to  repeal  is  re- 
served,967 and  power  to  withdraw  an  entire  franchise  includes 
power  to  modify  or  restrict  its  exercise.968 

While,  under  this  reserved  power  to  repeal,  the  state  may 
terminate  the  existence  of  a  corporation,  it  can  take  from  the 
corporation  by  legislation  no  more  than  it  has  granted  to  the 
corporation  by  legislation.969  Property  acquired  by  a  corpora- 
tion under  its  charter  is  not  confiscated  by  reason  of  the  re- 
peal of  the  charter,  nor  are  contract  rights  of  third  persons  dis- 
turbed thereby;970  the  courts  retain  power  to  protect  the  rights 

963  Bailey  v.  Trustees,  6  E.  I.  491. 

964  Bridge  Co.  v.  United  States,  105  TJ.  S.  481,  26  L.  ed.  1143; 
Late  Corporation  etc.  v.  United  States,  136  U.  S.  1,  10  S.  Ct.  80S, 
34  L.  ed.  478,  affirming  5  Utah,  69,  15  Pac.  477;  Baltimore  etc.  Co. 
v.  Mayor,  64  Fed.  160;  Crease  v.  Babcock,  23  Pick.  340,  34  Am.  Dec. 
63;  McLaren  v.  Pennington,  1  Paige,  102;  People  v.  O'Brien,  111 
N.  Y.  49,  7  Am.  St.  Eep.  702,  18  N.  E.  702,  2  L.  E.  A.  255;  State  v. 
Southern  Pacific  E.  R.  Co.,  24  Tex.  125. 

965  Crease  v.  Babcock,  23  Pick.  334,  34  Am.  Dec.  63;  Miners'  Bank 
v.  United  States,  1  Iowa,  553;  Erie  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Casey,  26  Pa. 
St.  287.  But  see  Mayor  etc.  v.  Pittsburgh  etc.  E.  E.,  1  Abb.  U.  S. 
9,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  827;  Flint  etc.  v.  Woodhull,  25  Mich.  99. 

»66  Waters-Pierce  Oil  Co.  v.  Texas,  177  U.  S.  47,  20  S.  Ct.  518,  44 
L.  ed.  657. 

967  Union  E.  E.  Co.  v.  East  Tennessee  E.  E.  Co.,  14  Ga.  327. 

968  West  End  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Atlanta  Street  E.  E.  Co.,  49  Ga.  151. 

969  Ashnelot  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Elliott,  58  N.  H.  451;  Black  Eiver  Imp. 
Co.  v.  Holway,  87  Wis.  587,  59  N.  W.  127. 

970  Greenwood  v.  Freight  Co.,  105  U.  S.  19,  26  L.  ed.  961. 


383  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

of  such  third  persons.971  Franchises  granted  for  a  longer 
period  than  the  life  of  the  corporation  exercising  them  survive 
the  dissolution  of  the  corporation,972  and  upon  the  same  prin- 
ciple, where  a  corporation  has  acquired  franchises  from  another 
source  than  the  legislature,  as  from  a  municipality,  such  fran- 
chises are  property,  of  which  the  corporation  cannot  be  de- 
prived without  due  process  of  law;973  they  constitute  a  part  of 
the  corporate  assets,  to  be  distributed  as  other  property.974 

The  executory  contracts  of  a  corporation  cannot  be  destroyed 
under  the  power  to  repeal  the  charter,  and  rights  thereunder  may 
be  asserted  in  the  courts  against  the  .property.975  If  the  power 
to  repeal  is  reserved  by  one  constitution,  it  cannot  be  affected 
by  the  subsequent  adoption  of  another.976  Under  the  reserved 
power  to  repeal  the  state  may  regulate  tolls  or  rates  of  trans- 
portation of  persons  or  property.977  A  state  may  alter  or  re- 
peal a  charter  of  incorporation  where  it  is  the  sole  contributor 
to  the  fund  which  supports  the  corporation.978 

971  Lake  Shore  etc.  By.  v.  Smith,  173  TJ.  S.  690,  19  S.  Ct.  567,  43 
L.  ed.  80S;  Lafayette  Co.  v.  Neely,  21  Fed.  739;  Hill  v.  Glascow  Ey., 
41  Fed.  616;  Citizens'  Street  Ey.  Co.  v.  City  Ey.  Co.,  64  Fed.  651. 

972  Detroit  v.  Detroit  City  Ey.  Co.,  56  Fed.  883. 

973  Monongahela  Nav.  Co.  v.  United  States,  148  U.  S.  344,  13  S. 
Ct.  633,  37  L.  ed.  463. 

974  People  v.  O'Brien,  111  N.  Y.  57,  7  Am.  St.  Eep.  709,  18  N.  E. 
707,  2  L.  E.  A.  255. 

975  Curran  v.  Arkansas,  15  How.  312,  14  L.  ed.  705;  Edison  Light 
Co.  v.  New  Haven  Co.,  35  Fed.  237;  Smith  v.  Huckabee,  53  Ala.  195; 
Whitney  v.  Sheboygan  Co.,  25  Wis.  207,  3  Am.  Eep.  47. 

976  State  v.  Northern  Cent.  E.  E.  Co.,  44  Md.  131. 

977  Peik  v.  Northwestern  E,  E.  Co.,  94  TJ.  S.  164,  24  L.  ed.  97- 
Parker  v.  Metropolitan  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  109  Mass.  506;  Plankroad  Co', 
v.  Eeynolds,  3  Wis.  287;  Attorney  General  v.  Eailroad  Co.,  35  Wis. 
425;  Hinckley  v.  Chicago  etc.  E.  E.,  38  Wis.  194;  Shields  v.  State, 
26  Ohio  St.  86. 

978  Curran  v.  Arkansas,  15  How.  309,  14  L.  ed.  705;  Dart  v. 
Houston,  22  Ga.  506;  Trustees  v.  Winston,  5  Stew.  &  P.  17;  Bass  v. 
Fontleroy,  11  Tex.  698;  Mobile  School  Com.  v.  Putnam,  44  Ala.  406." 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  384 

Obligation  of  Contract,  What  is. 

The  obligation  of  a  contract  is  the  law  which  binds  the  par- 
ties to  perform  their  agreement;  the  law  in  force  at  the  time 
when  the  contract  is  made,  and  which  enters  into  and  becomes 
a  part  of  the  contract.1  It  is  that  duty  to  perform  the  con- 
tract which  is  recognized  and  enforced  by  law;2  it  depends  upon 
the  terms  of  the  contract  and  the  means  which  the  law  in 
existence  at  the  time  affords  for  its  enforcement,3  and  consists 
of  that  right  or  power  over  his  will  or  actions  which  a  party 
confers  on  another,4  and  includes  everything  within  its  object 
and  scope.5  The  obligation  contemplated  by  this  clause  is  a 
valid  and  subsisting,  and  not  a  contingent  or  speculative,  ob- 
ligation.6 It  does  not  inhere  and  consist  in  the  contract  itself, 
but  in  the  law  applicable  to  the  contract.7  Laws  relating  to 
the  validity,  construction,  discharge  and  enforcement  of  the 
contract  constitute  the  obligation  and  are  a  part  of  the  con- 
tract.8 The  binding  force  of  a  contract  depends  upon  the  laws 
in  existence  when  it  is  made.9     It  is  the  legal  and  not  the 

1  Sturges  v.  Crowninshield,  4  Wheat.  197,  4  L.  ed.  529;  Ogde,i 
v.  Saunders,  12  Wheat.  257,  259,  6  L.  ed.  606;  Von  Hoffman  v.  Quincy, 
4  Wall.  552,  18  L.  ed.  403;  Bedford  v.  Eastern  Building  etc.  Assn., 
181  U.  S.  241,  21  S.  Ot.  597,  45  L.  ed.  834;  Blann  v.  State,  39  Ala. 
353,  74  Am.  Dec.  788;  Trustees  v.  Eider,  13  Conn.  96;  Young  v.  Har- 
rison, 6  Ga.  156;  Wachter  v.  Famachon,  62  Wis.  121,  22  N.  W.  161. 

2  Curran  v.  Arkansas,  15  How.  319,  14  L.  ed.  705;  Louisiana  v. 
New  Orleans,  102  U.  S.  206,  26  L.  ed.  132;  Louisiana  v.  Police  Jury, 
111  U.  S.  720,  4  S.  Ct.  648,  28  L.  ed.  574. 

3  Murray  v.  Charleston,  96  TJ.  S.  448,  24  L.  ed.  760. 

4  Ogden  v.  Saunders,  12  Wheat.  213,  6  L.  ed.  606;  Lapsley  v. 
Brashears,  4  Litt.  47. 

6  Edwards  v.  Kearzey,  96  TJ.  S.  601,  24  L.  ed.  793. 

6  Curran  v.  Arkansas,  15  How.  319,  14  L.  ed.  705. 

7  Ogden  v.  Saunders,  12  Wheat.  353,  6  L.  ed.  606;  Sturges  v.  Crown- 
inshield, 4  Wheat.  122,  4  L.  ed.  529;  Bronson  v.  Kinzie,  1  How.  311, 
11  L.  ed.  143;  McCracken  v.  Hayward,  2  How.  608,  11  L.  ed.  397; 
Blair  v.  Williams,  4  Litt.  34;  Lapsley  v.  Brashears,  4  Litt.  47;  Blanch- 
ard  v.  Bussell,  13  Mass.  1,  7  Am.  Dee.  106. 

8  Edwards  v.  Kearzey,  96  U.  S.  601,  24  L.  ed.  793;  Von  Hoffman  v. 
Quincy,  4  Wall.  535,  18  L.  ed.  403;  McCracken  v.  Hayward,  2  How. 
608,  11  L.  ed.  397;  Walker  v.  Whitehead,  16  Wall.  317,  21  L.  e  1. 
357. 

9  Sturges  v.  Crowninshield,  4  Wheat.  122,  4  L.  ed.  529;  Ogden    r. 


385  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

moral,  obligation  of  a  contract  which  the  constitution  protects,10 
and  ft  is  the  obligation  of  contracts  only  that  the  constitution 
refers  to.11 

The  obligation  of  a  contract  commences  at  its  date,12  and 
continues  until  the  debt  is  paid  or  the  act  is  performed.13  The 
legal  remedies  for  the  enforcement  of  the  contract  which  be- 
long to  it  at  the  time  and  place  where  it  is  made  continue  to 
be  a  part  of  it  until  performance.14  The  validity,  construc- 
tion, and  remedy  are  parts  of  the  obligation,15  and  any  subse- 
quent law  which  so  affects  the  remedy  as  to  impair  and  lessen 
the  value  of  the  contract  is  forbidden.16  The  protection  of  the 
obligation  clause  extends  to  future  acquisitions  under  a  eon- 
tract  valid  when  made.17  Statutes  in  force  at  the  time  of  the 
issuance  of  bonds  form  a  part  of  the  contract  of  the  parties.18 
Contracts  based  for  consideration  upon  Confederate  money  or 
securities,  not  issued  in  aid  of  Rebellion,  have  a  legal,  binding 
obligation  protected  by  this    clause.19     Parties    are    not    pre- 

Saunders,  12  Wheat.  213,  6  L.  ed.  606;  McCracken  v.  Hay  ward,  2 
How.  608,  11  L.  ed.  397;  Eobinson  v.  Magee,  9  Cal.  84,  70  Am.  Dee. 
638;  Aycock  v.  Martin,  37  Ga.  124,  92  Am.  Dec.  56;  Johnson  v.  Duncan, 
3  Mart.  531,  6  Am.  Dec.  675;  Bruce  v.  Schuyler,  4  Gilm.  221,  46  Am. 
Dec.  447;  West  Sav.  Fund  v.  Philadelphia,  31  Pa.  St.  175;  Wood 
v.  Wood,  14  Rich.  14S;  Smith  v.  Cleveland,  17  Wis.  556;  Fitzgerald 
v.  Grand  Trunk  Ey.  Co.,  63  Vt.  169,  22  Atl.  76,  13  L.  R.  A.  70. 

io  Ogden  v.  Saunders,  12  Wheat.  213,  6  L.  ed.  606;  Webster  v. 
Rose,  6  Heisk.  93,  19  Am.  Rep.  583. 

ii  Ogden  v.  Saunders,  12  Wheat.  213,  &  L.  ed.  606;  Robinson  v. 
Magee,  9  Cal.  84,  70  Am.  Dec.  638;  Blair  v.  Williams,  4  Litt.  34. 

12  Blair  v.  Williams,  4  Litt.  34. 

13  Bailey  v.  Gentry,  1  Mo.  164;  Forsythe  v.  Marbury,  R.  M.  Charl-. 
324. 

14  Gunn  v.  Barry,  15  Wall.  623,  21  L.  ed.  212;  In  re  Ayers,  123 
U.  S.  505,  8  S.  Ct.  164,  31  L.  ed.  216. 

15  Green  v.  Biddle,  8  Wheat.  1,  5  L.  ed.  547;  Ogden  v.  Saunders, 
12  Wheat.  213,  6  L.  ed.  606;  Bronson  v.  Kinzie,  1  How.  311;  Walker 
v.  Whitehead,  16  Wall.  314,  21  L.  ed.  357. 

16  Edwards  v.  Kearzey,  96  U.  S.  607,  24  L.  ed.  793;  Seibert  v. 
Lewis,  122  U.  S.  294,  7  S.  Ct.  1190,  30  L.  ed.  1161. 

17  Edwards  v.  Kearzey,  96  U.  S.  600,  24  L.  ed.  793. 

18  Butz  v.  City  of  Muscatine,  8  Wall.  583,  19  L.  ed.  490. 

19  Thorington  v.  Smith,  8  Wall.  1,  19  L.  ed.  361;  Delrnas  v.  Mer- 

Notes  on  Constitution — 25 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  3bG 

sumed  to  have  contracted  with  reference  to  every  existing  law, 
however,  but  only  with  reference  to  those  laws  which  in  their 
direct  or  necessary  operation,  control  or  affect  their  obliga- 
tions.20 

What  Constitutes  Impairment. 


To  impair  the  obligation  of  a  contract  means  to  alter  it 
so  as  to  make  the  contract  more  beneficial  to  one  party  and 
less  to  the  other  than  by  its  terms  it  purports  to  be.21  A  law 
releasing  any  part  of  the  obligation  of  a  contract  impairs  it  to 
that  extent,  and  is  unconstitutional.22  So,  also,  as  to  a  law 
which  enlarges,  abridges,  or  in  any  manner  changes  the  in- 
tention of  the  parties,  resulting  from  stipulations  in  the  con- 
tract,23 or  a  law  which  imposes  new  conditions  or  dispenses 
with  those  expressed.24  Any  means  which  lessens  the  validity, 
gives  diminished  value,  or  devests  priority  of  lien,  obligation 
or  recovery,  violates  the  obligation,25  or  anything  which  affects 
the  validity  of  the  contract,26  as  where  the  remedy  is  dimin- 
ished, weakened,  or  rendered  less  operative.27  The  obligation 
of  a  contract  is  impaired  by  acts  preventing  its  enforcement,  or 
materially  abridging  remedies,  without  supplying  others  equally 

chants'  Ins.  Co.,  14  Wall.  661,  20  L.  ed.  757;  Hanauer  v.  Woodruff, 
15  Wall.  439,  21  L.  ed.  224;  Confederate  Note  Case,  19  Wall.  548, 
22  L.  ed.  196;  Wilmington  etc.  E.  E.  v.  King,  91  U.  S.  3,  23  L.  ed. 
186;  Eoach  v.  Gunter,  44  Ala.  209,  4  Am.  Eep.  132;  Branch  v.  Baker, 
53  Ga.  502;  Henderson  v.  Merchants'  Mut.  Ins.  Co.,  25  La.  Ann.  343. 
But  see  Hale  v.  Huston.  44  Ala,  134,  4  Am.  Eep.  124. 

20  Connecticut  Mut.  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Cushman,  108  U.  S.  65,  2  S. 
Ct.  236,  27  L.  ed.  648;  Eosenplanter  v.  Provident  Sav.  etc.  Soc,  90 
Fed.  727,  728,  46  L.  E.  A.  473,  affirming  91  Fed.   735. 

21  Bailey   v.    Gentry,    1    Mo.    164. 

22  Sturges  v.  Crowninslrield,  4  Wheat.  197,  4  L.  ed.  529. 

23  Green  v.  Biddle,  8  Wheat.  84,  5  L.  ed.  547;  Ogden  v.  Saunders, 
12  Wheat.  261,  6  L.  ed.  606. 

24  Railroad  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  15  Wall.  320,  21  L.   ed.   179. 

25  Grimball  v.  Boss,  Charlt.  175. 

26  Edwards  v.  Kearzey,  96  U.  S.  595,  24  L.  ed.  793;  Planters'  Bank 
V.  Sharp,  6  How.  301,  12  L.  ed.  447. 

27  Lapsley  v.  Brashears,  4  Litt.  47;  Nevitt  v.  Bank,  14  Miss.  513. 


387  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

adequate,28  or  diminishing  the  duty  or  denying  or  ohstructing 
the  rights  accruing  from  it,29  or  dispensing  with  any  part  of 
its  force.30  So  the  discharge  of  a  contract  is  a  direct  impair- 
ment of  its  obligation;31  so  where  the  contract  is  destroyed,32 
or  where  an  essential  part  is  annulled,33  or  partly  rescinded.34 

The  time,  place,  parties  or  subject  of  a  contract  cannot  be 
changed,35  and  the  obligation  is  impaired  by  a  statute  which 
authorizes  a  discharge  of  the  contract  by  a  smaller  sum,  or 
at  a  different  time,  or  in  a  different  manner  than  stipulated,36 
as  the  alteration  of  the  terms  of  a  condition  in  a  mortgage,37 
or  a  statute  authorizing  a  defendant  to  give  up  the  property, 
for  which  the  contract  on  which  he  is  sued,  was  made  in  full 
discharge  of  his  indebtedness.38  If,  however,  neither  party  is 
relieved  from  performing  anything  of  that  which  he  bound 
himself  to  do,  the  obligation  of  the  contract  is  not  impaired.39 

Acts  declaring  void,  contracts  which  were  valid  when  made, 
impair  contract  obligations  and  are  void,40  and  statutes  declar- 
ing that  a  certain,  hitherto  good,  consideration  shall  be  void, 
are  inoperative  as  to  prior  contracts;41  e.  g.,  a  statute  declaring 

28  McGahey  v.  Virginia,  135  U.  S.  693,  10  S.  Ct.  972,  34  L.  ed. 
304;  State  v.  Young,  28  Minn.  525,  9  N.  W.  739. 

29  MeCracken  v.  Hayward,  2  How.  612,  11  L.  ed.  397. 

30  Planters'  Bank  v.  Sharp,  6  How.  327,  12  L.  ed.  447. 

31  Farmers'  etc.  Bank  v.  Smith,  6  Wheat.  131,  5  L.  ed.  224. 

32  Robinson  v.  Magee,  9  Cal.  84,  70  Am.  Dec.  638. 

33  New  Jersey  v.  Wilson,  7  Cr.  164,  3  L.  ed.  303. 

34  Grimball  v.  Ross,  Charlt.   175. 

35  Townsend   v.   TWnsend,   Peck    (Tenn.),   1,   14   Am.   Dec.    722. 

36  Golden  v.  Prince,  3  Wash.  C.  C.  313,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5509;  Edmond- 
son  v.  Ferguson,  11  Mo.  344. 

37  Bronson  v.  Kinzie,  1  How.  311,  11  L.  ed.  143;  Pool  v.  Young, 
7  Mon.  58. 

38  Abercrombie  v.  Baxter,  44  Ga.  36. 

39  Oshko-sh  Waterworks  Co.  v.  Oshkosh,  187  U.  S.  437,  47  L.  ed. 
249,  affirming  109  Wis.  208,  95  Am.  St.  Rep.  811,  85  N.  W.  376. 

40  Mays  v.  Williams,  27  Ala.  267;  Berrett  v.  Oliver,  7  Gill  &  J. 
191;  Harrison  v.  Styres,  74  N.  C.   290. 

41  McNealy  v.  Gregory,  13  Fla.  417. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1    Obligation  of  Contracts.  388 

that  contracts  the  consideration  of  which  was  slaves,  void.42 
or  a  statute  declaring  the  consideration  of  Confederate  notes, 
bonds,  or  money  to  he  void.43  So,  also,  verbal  contracts,  valid 
when  made,  cannot  lie  invalidated  by  a  subsequent  act  requiring 
such  contracts  to  be  evidenced  by  writing,44  nor  can  a  statute 
requiring  certain  contracts  to  be  stamped  be  applied  to  con- 
tracts previously  executed.45  A  statute  which  releases  one 
party  from  any  article  of  a  stipulation  is  a  violation  of  the 
obligation;46  e.  g.,  a  statute  releasing  a  sheriff  and  sureties 
from  liability  on  an  official  bond,47  or  releasing  sureties  on  a 
bail  bond  after  condition  broken  and  an  assignment  of  the 
bond  to  the  creditor.48  The  sureties  on  an  official  bond  cannot 
be  held  liable  for  the  failure  of  their  principal  to  discharge  the 
duties  of  an  additional  office  imposed  by  a  subsequent  act,49 
nor  can  a  statute  change  the  liability  of  sureties  from  joint 
to  joint  and  several.50     A  statute  releasing  a  tenant  from  his 

42  Osborn  v.  Nicholson,  13  Wall.  654,  20  L.  ed.  689;  Boyce  v.  Tabb, 
18  Wall.  546,  21  L.  ed.  757;  McElvain  v.  Mudd,  44  Ala.  48,  4  Am. 
Eep.  106;  Fitzpatrick  v.  Hearne,  44  Ala.  171,  4  Am.  Rep.  128;  Eoach 
v.  Gunter,  44  Ala.  209,  4  Am.  Rep.  132. 

43  Delmas  v.  Merchants'  Ins.  Co.,  14  Wall.  661,  20  L.  ed.  757; 
Hanauer  v.  Woodruff,  15  Wall.  439,  21  L.  ed.  224;  Confederate  Note 
Case,  19  Wall.  548,  22  L.  ed.  196;  Wilmington  etc.  R.  R.  v.  King, 
91  TJ.  S.  3,  23  L.  ed.  186;  Forseheimer  v.  Holly,  14  Fla.  239;  Roach 
v.  Gunter,  44  Ala.  209,  4  Am.  Rep.  132;  Hatch  v.  Burroughs,  1 
Woods,  439,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6203;  Henderson  v.  Merchants'  Mut.  Ins. 
Co.,  25  La.  Ann.  343. 

4  4  Von  Hoffman  v.  Quincy.  4  Wall.  535,  18  L.  ed.  403;  Hayes  v. 
Clinkscales,  9  Rich.  441;  Richardson  v.  Cook,  37  Vt.  599,  88  Am. 
Dec.  622. 

45  Hunter  v.  Cobb,  1  Bush  (Ky.),  239. 

46  Jones  v.  Crittenden,  1  Car.  Law  Rep.  385,  6  Am.  Dec.  531;  Pool 
v.  Young,  7  Mon.  587;  Townsend  v.  Townsend,  Peck  (Tenn.),  1,  14 
Am.  Dec.  722;   Greenfield  v.  Dorris,  1  Sneed,  548. 

47  State  v.   Gatzweiller,  49  Mo.  18,  8  Am.  Rep.   119. 

48  Lewis  v.  Brackenridge,  1  Blackf.  220,  12  Am.  Dec.  228;  Starr 
v.  Robinson,  1  Chip.  257,  6  Am.  Dec.  732. 

49  Eeynolds  v.  Hall,  2  111.  35. 

50  Fielden  v.  Lahens,  6  Blatchf.  524,  Fed.   Cas.  No.  4773. 

51  Clark  v.  Ticknor,  49  Mo.  144. 

51!  Coles  v.  Celluloid  Mfg.  Co.,  39  N.  J.  L.  326. 


389  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

liability  for  rent  is  void,51   as  also  is  a  statute  terminating  a 
prior  lease  upon  the  destruction  of  the  premises  by  fire.52 


Degree  of  Impairment. 

Under  the  constitution  the  obligation  of  a  contract  is  not  to 
be  impaired  at  all.53  It  is  not  a  question  of  degree,  manner 
or  cause,  but  of  encroaching  in  any  respect  on  its  obligation — 
dispensing  with  any  part  of  its  force;54  and  any  deviation  by 
postponement  or  acceleration  of  the  period  of  performance,  or 
imposing  conditions  not  expressed,  or  dispensing  with  those 
expressed,  is  a  violation  of  the  obligation.55  The  slightest  vari- 
ation of  the  obligation  impairs  it  to  that  extent  and  is  uncon- 
stitutional.56 

Instances  of  su^h  variation  are:  laws  compelling  a  party  to 
do  more  than  his  contract  requires  or  enforcing  payment  be- 
fore a  debt  becomes  due  under  a  contract;57  providing  for  the 

53  Green  v.  Biddle,  8  Wheat.  84,  5  L.  ed.  547;  Planters'  Bank  v. 
Sharp,  6  How.  327,  12  L.  ed.  447;  Von  Hoffman  v.  Quincy,  4  Wall. 
553,  18  L.  ed.  403;  Antoni  v.  Greenhow,  107  U.  S.  797,  2  S.  Ct.  115, 
33  L.  ed.  301;  United  States  v.  Jefferson  County,  1  McCrary,  361,  5 
Dill.  315,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,472;  Mutual  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Eichardson, 
77  Fed.  398;  Phinney  v.  Phinney,  81  Me.  461,  10  Am.  St.  Pep.  269, 
17  Atl.  407,  4  L.  E.  A.  348;  State  v.  Young,  29  Minn.  547,  9  N.  W. 
751;  Lessley  v.  Phipps,  49  Miss.  800;  Skinner  v.  Holt,  9  S.  Dak.  434, 
62  Am.  St.  Eep.   883,  69  N.  W.  597. 

54  Sturges  v.  Crowninshield,  4  Wheat.  197,  4  L.  ed.  529;  Green 
v.  Biddle,  8  Wheat.  84,  5  L.  ed.  545;  Planters'  Bank  v.  Sharp,  6  How. 
327,  12  L.  ed.  447;  Walker  v.  Whitehead,  16  Wall.  314,  21  L.  ed.  357; 
Von  Hoffman  v.  Quiney,  4  Wall.  553,  4  L.  ed.  403;  Gault's  Appeal, 
33  Pa.  St.  194;  Farnsworth  v.  Eeeves,  2  Cold.  Ill;  Winter  v.  Jones, 
10  Ga.  190,  54  Am.  Dec.  379;  Woodruff  v.  State,  3  Ark.  285;  Commer- 
cial Bank  v.  State,  4  Smedes  &  M.  439. 

55  Green  v.  Biddle,  8  Wheat.  84,  5  L.  ed.  547;  McCracken  v.  Hay- 
ward,  2  How.  608,  11  L.  ed.  397;  Eailroad  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  15 
Wall.  320,  21  L.  ed.  179;  McGahey  v.  Virginia,  135  U.  S.  693,  10  S. 
Ct.  972,  34  L.  ed.  304;  New  York  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania.  153 
IT.  S.  647,  14  S.  Ct.  958,  38  L.  ed.  846. 

56  Sturges  v.  Crowninshield,  4  Wheat.  197,  4  L.  ed.  529;  Ogden  v. 
Saunders,  12  Wheat.  21,  6  L.  ed.  606;  Goodale  v.  Fennell,  27  Ohio 
St.  432,  22  Am.  Eep.  326;  People  ex  rel.  v.  Otis,  90  N.  Y.  52;  Blanch- 
ard  v.  Eussell,  13  Mass.  1,  7  Am.  Dec.  106. 

57  Jones  v.  Crittenden,  1  CaT.  L.  Eep.  385,  6  Am.  Dec.  531;  Town- 
send  v.   Townsend,  Peck   (Tenn.),  1,  14  Am.  Dec.   721. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  01. 1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  390 

of  substitute  bonds  tending  to  lessen  a  city's  liability;58 
altering  a  law  providing  for  the  assessment  of  a  tax  so  as  to 
impair  bonds  issued  in  reliance  upon  it;59  providing  that  the 
estate  of  one  jointly  liable  with  another  shall  not  be  discharged 
by  his  death;60  authorizing  the  sale  of  property  free  from  en- 
cumbrance before  the  maturity  of  a  mortgage;01  providing  that 
all  contracts  shall  be  payable  in  installments;62  changing  a 
joint  bond  into  a  several  bond;63  depriving  a  creditor  of  in- 
terest on  an  overdue  debt;64  requiring  the  payment  of  interest 
on  a  debt  which  did  not  bear  interest  ;65  giving  courts  and  juries 
power  to  remit  interest;66  requiring  the  payment  of  a  higher 
rate  of  interest  than  that  allowed  when  the  contract  was  exe- 
cuted;67 authorizing  recovery  of  damages  in  addition  to  inter- 
est;68 enlarging  the  liability  of  a  surety  by  changing  the  con- 
tract of  his  principal;69  changing  the  place  of  payment  stipu- 
lated for  the  payment  of  a  debt;70  authorizing  a  party  to  sur- 
render  property  in  full  discharge  of  indebtedness;71  withdraw- 
ing the  property  of  a  debtor  from  the  operation  of  legal  process 
of  his  creditor;72  authorizing  a  debtor,  by  assignment  of  his 

58  Goodale  v.  Fennell,  27  Ohio  St.  432,  22  Am.  Rep.  326. 

59  Edwards  v.  Williamson,  70  Ala.  152;  County  Commissioners  v. 
King,  13  Fla.  476;  State  v.  Young,  29  Minn.  528,  9  N.  W.  741. 

60  Eandall  v.  Sackett,  77  N.  Y.  482. 

61  Eandolph  v.  Middleton,  26  N.  J.  Eq.  543. 

62  Aycock  v.  Martin,  37  Ga.  124,  92  Am.  Dec.  56;  Jacobs  v.  Small- 
wood,  63  N.  C.  112. 

63  Fielden  v.   Lohens,   6   Blatchf.   524,   Fed.   Cas.   No.   4773. 

64  Bleakley  v.  Williams,  20  Pitts.  L.  J.  66, 

65  Goggins  v.  Turnipseed,  1  Rick.,  N.  S.,  80,  98  Am.  Dec.  397,  7 
Am.  Rep.  23. 

66  Roberts  v.  Cocke,  28  Gratt.  215. 

67  Woodruff  v.  State,  3  Ark.  285;  Hubbard  v.  Callahan,  42  Conn. 
524,  19  Am.  Rep.  564;  Lee  v.  Davis,  1  A.  K.  Marsh.  397,  10  Am.  Dee. 
746;  Bryan  v.  Moore,  1  Minor,  377. 

68  Steen  v.  Finley,  25  Miss.  535. 

69  Schuster  v.  Weiss,  114  Mo.  174,  21  S.  W.  443,  19  L.  R.  A.  182. 

70  Bank  v.  McVeigh,  20  Gratt.  465. 

71  Abercrombie  v.  Baxter,  44  Ga.  36. 
7  2  State  v.  Bank,  1  S.  C.  78. 


391  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

property,  to  defeat  a  levy  made  thereon  within  ten  days  ;73  pro- 
viding that  indorsers  shall  be  bound  without  demand,  notice  or 
protest.74 

Any  act  of  the  legislature  in  contravention  of  a  compact  is 
an  impairment  of  the  obligation  of  a  contract  and  is  void.75 
A  declaratory  act  may  be  unconstitutional  under  this  clause, 
as  well  as  any  other  statute,76  and  a  law  providing  that  all 
future  contracts  shall  be  subject  to  the  power  of  future  legisla- 
tures cannot  render  the  obligation  clause  inoperative  as  a  pro- 
tection.77 

Laws  not  Violating  Obligation. 

A  statute  which  affects  the  value  of  a  contract  does  not  neces- 
sarily impair  its  obligation;  so  long  as  the  obligation  to  per- 
form remains  in  force,  legislation  which  retroacts  on  previous 
contracts  and  enhances  the  cost  and  difficulty  of  performance 
or  diminishes  the  value  of  such  performance  is  constitutional.78 
The  states  may  pass  laws  which  will  operate  to  devest  ante- 
cedent rights  if  they  do  not  technically  impair  the  obligation 
of  contracts.79     The    legislature    may  validate    past    transac- 

73  Peninsular  etc.  v.  Union  Oil  Co.,  100  Wis.  492,  76  X.  W.  361, 
42  L.  E.  A.  331;  Second  etc.  Bank  v.  Schranck,  97  Wis.  262,  73  X.  W. 
35,  39  L.  E.  A.  569. 

74  Farmers'  Bank  v.  Grinnell,  26  Gratt.   131. 

75  Green  v.  Bidclle,  8  Wheat.  84,  5  L.  ed.  547;  Pennsylvania  v. 
Wheeling  etc.  Bridge  Co.,  18  How.  433,  15  L.  ed.  449. 

76  Dundas  v.  Bowler,  3  McLean,  397,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4141;  Union 
Iron  Co.  v.  Pierce,  4  Biss.  327,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,367. 

77  Green  v.  Schroeder,  8  Minn.  3S7. 

78  Curtis  v.  Whitney,  13  Wall.  71,  20  L.  ed.  513;  Hamilton  Gaslight 
Co.  v.  Hamilton  City,  146  U.  S.  268,  13  S.  Ct.  93,  36  L.  ed.  963;  Gria- 
wold  v.  Bragg,  18  Blatchf.  208,  48  Fed.  522,  4S  Conn.  582. 

79  Calder  v.  Bull,  3  Dall.  386,  1  L.  ed.  648;  Watson  v.  Mercer,  8 
Pet.  110,  8  L.  ed.  876;  Baltimore  etc.  E,  E.  v.  Nesbit,  10  How.  395, 
13  L.  ed.  469;  Carpenter  v.  Pennsylvania,  17  How.  463,  15  L.  ed. 
127;  Satterlee  v.  Matthewson,  2  Pet.  380,  7  L.  ed.  458,  affirming  16 
Serg.  &  E.  186;  Lewis  v.  Lewis,  7  How.  784,  12  L.  ed.  909;  Charle3 
Eiv.  Bridge  v.  Warren  Bridge,  11  Pet.  420,  9  L.  ed.  773;  Freeland  v. 
Williams,  131  U.  S.  420,  9  S.  Ct.  768,  33  L.  ed.  193;  Albee  v.  May, 
2  Paine,  79,  Fed.  Cas.  Xo.  134;  Buckner  v.  Street,  1  Dill.  254,  Fed. 
Cas.   Xo.  209S;  Wilson  v.  HarJesty,  1  Md.  Ch.  6S;   Coles  v.  Madison 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  392 

tions.80  A  law  which  gives  validity  to  a  void  contract  cannot 
he  said  to  impair  the  obligation  of  such  contract.81  Accord- 
ingly the  legislature  may  cure  irregularities  in  conveyances,82 
or  mortgages;83  and  laws  passed  to  remedy  defective  execu- 
tion of  powers  are  not  unconstitutional.84  Statutes  validating 
defective  acknowledgments  affect  merely  evidence  of  facts  and 
do  not  impair  contract  obligations;85  but  such  statutes  cannot 
operate  to  devest  the  title  of  third  persons  not  parties  to 
deeds  attempted  to  be  corrected.80  Acts  curing  defective  regis- 
tration of  deeds  stand  upon  the  same  footing  and  are  valid.87 
Curative  statutes  in  general  are  not  open  to  objection  as  im- 

County,  Breese,  156,  12  Am.  Dec.  163;  Danville  v.  Pace,  25  Gratt. 
10,  18  Am.  Eep.  669;  Henderson  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Dickerson,  17  B.  Mon. 
177,  66  Am.  Dec.  149;  Cochran  v.  Van  Surlay,  20  Wend.  365,  32  Am. 
Dec.  570. 

80  Leland  v.  Wilkinson,  10  Pet.  294,  9  L.  ed.  430;  Pelt  v.  Payne, 
60  Ark.  637,  30  S.  W.  426;  Dulany  v.  Tilghman,  6  Gill  &  J.  473;  Wis>- 
tar  v.  Foster,  46  Minn.  484,  24  Am.  St.  Rep.  241,  49  N.  W.  247. 

81  Satterlee  v.  Matthewaon,  2  Pet.  380,  7  L.  ed.  458,  affirming  16 
Serg.  &  R.  186;  Watson  v.  Mercer,  8  Pet.  88,  8  L.  ed.  876;  Hess  v. 
Werts,  4  Serg.  &  R.  356;  Bleakney  v.  Farmers'  Bank,  17  Serg.  &  R. 
64,  17  Am.  Dee.  635;  Bridgeport  v.  Railroad  Co.,  15  Conn.  475;  Welsii 
v.  Wadsworth,  30  Conn.  154;  Mather  v.  Chapman,  6  Cow.  57;  Central 
Bank  v.  Empire  S.  D.  Co.,  26  Barb.  23. 

82  Satterlee  v.  Matthewson,  2  Pet.  380,  7  L.  ed.  458,  affirming 
16  Serg.  &  R.  186;  Watson  v.  Mercer,  8  Pet.  88,  8  L.  ed.  876;  Leland 
v.  Wilkinson,  10  Pet.  294,  9  L.  ed.  430;  McFadden  v.  Evans-Snider- 
Buel  Co.,  185  TJ.  S.  513,  22  S.  Ct.  758,  46  L.  ed.  1012;  Sidway  v.  Law- 
son,  58  Ark.  117,  23  S.  W.  648;  Grove  v.  Todd,  41  Md.  633,  20  Am. 
Rep.  76;  Ross  v.  Worthington,  11  Minn.  438,  88  Am.  Dec.  95. 

83  Gross  v.  United  States  Mortgage  Co.,  108  U.  S.  477,  2  S.  Ct. 
940,  27  L.  ed.  795,  affirming  93  111.  483. 

84  Sohn  v.  Watterson,  17  Wall.  596,  21  L.  ed.  737;  Randall  v. 
Kreiger,  23  Wall.  137,  23  L.  ed.  124,  affirming  2  Dill.  444,  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  11,554;  Dentzel  v.  Waldie,  30  Cal.   138. 

85  Carpenter  v.  Dexter,  8  Wall.  525,  19  L.  ed.  426;  Barnet  v.  Bar- 
net,  15  Serg.  &  R.  72,  16  Am.  Dec.  516;  Montgomery  v.  Hobson,  19 
Tenn.  437;  Alabama  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Baldwin,  38  Ala.  510;  Cupp  v. 
Welch,  50  Ark.  294,  7  S.  W.  139;  Summer  v.  Mitchell,  29  Fla.  179,  30 
Am.  St.  Rep.  106,  10  South.  562,  14  L.  R.  A.  815. 

86  Grpon  v.  Drinker,  7  Watts    &  S.  440. 

87  Hughes  v.  Cannon,  2  Humph.  589;  Green  v.  Goodall,  1  Cold.  404. 


393  Obligation  op  Contkacts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

pairing  contract  obligations.88  Accordingly  the  legislature 
may  pass  an  act  curing  defective  bond  issues;89  curing  defec- 
tive organization  of  public  or  private  corporations;90  curing  ir- 
regularities or  want  of  authority  in  the  levy  of  taxes;91  pro- 
viding for  the  validation  of  prior  marriages.02  But  the  power 
to  pass  curative  acts  to  legalize  proceedings  depends  upon  the 
existence  of  power  to  authorize  such  proceedings  originally.93 

If  a  party  is  not  precluded  by  a  statute  from  enforcing  a 
right  or  asserting  a  title,  the  statute  cannot  be  said  to  impair 
a  contract  obligation.94  So  a  statute  declaring  valid  contracts 
based  upon  what  was  deemed  an  illegal  consideration  at  the 
time  they  were  made,  is  constitutional.95  A  law  altering  the 
statute  of  frauds  and  giving  validity  to  a  parol  contract  has 
been  declared  constitutional.96  The  use  of  the  word  "void"  in 
a  usury  statute  has  been  declared  to  have  the  force  of  voidable, 
and  the  repeal  of  such  a  statute  to  merely  deprive  a  debtor  of 
his  statutory  defense.97  So  the  repeal  of  a  usury  statute  vali- 
dates contracts  otherwise  unenforceable.98     And  a  statute  mak- 

88  Satterlee  v.  Matthewson,  2  Pet.  412,  7  L.  ed.  458;  McMasters  v. 
Commonwealth,  3  Watts,  244;  Gibson  v.  Hibbard,  13  Mich.  219. 

89  Gelpcke  v.  Dubuque,  1  Wall.  204,  17  L.  ed.  520;  Beloit  v.  Mor- 
gan, 7  Wall.  624,  19  L.  ed.  205;  Bridgeport  v.  Kailroad  Co.,  15  Conn. 
497;  Bass  v.  Columbus,  30  Ga.  851;  McMillan  v.  Lee  County,  6  Iowa, 
394;   Kunkle  v.   Franklin,   13   Minn.   137,   97   Am.   Dec.   226. 

90  State  v.  Squires,  26  Iowa,  348;  Shields  v.  Land  Co.,  94  Tenn. 
148,  45  Am.  St.  Rep.  716,  28  S.  W.  .674,  26  L.  R.  A.  509. 

91  Grimm  v.  Weissenberg  School  Dist.,  57  Pa.  St.  433,  98  Am.  Dec. 
237. 

92  Jacquins  v.  Commonwealth,  63  Mass.  282;  Goshen  v.  Richmond, 
86  Mass.  461. 

93  Thompson  v.  Lee  County,  3  Wall.  331,  18  L.  ed.  177;  Kimball 
v.  Rosendale,  42  Wis.  407,  24  Am.  Rep.  421. 

94  Drehman  v.  Stifle,  8  Wall.  595,  19  L.  ed.  508. 

95  Satterlee  v.  Matthewson,  2  Pet.  412,  7  L.  ed.  458;  Curran  v. 
Arkansas,  15  How.  304;  Aspinwall  v.  Commissioners,  22  How.  365,  16 
L.  ed.  296. 

96  Baker  v.  Herndon,  17  Ga.  568. 

97  Ewell  v.  Daggs,  108  U.  S.  149,  2  S.  Ct.  414,  27  L.  ed.  682. 

98  Ewell  v.  Daggs,  108  U.  S.  151,  2  S.  Ct.  414,  27  L.  ed.  6S2;  Wood- 
ruff v.  Scruggs,  27  Ark.  26,  11  Am.  Rep.  777;  Baugher  v.  Nelson,  0 
Gill,  305,  52  Am.  Dec.  698;  Andrews  v.  Russell,  7  Blackf.  475;  Grime; 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  394 

ing  previous  payments  of  usurious  interest  valid  is  likewise  un- 
objectionable." A  statute  reducing  the  rate  of  interest  pay- 
able by  redemptioners  of  property  sold  under  mortgages  does 
not  impair  the  obligation  of  mortgages  previously  executed.100 
Laws  validating  defective  judgments  do  not  impair  contract  ob- 
ligations.101 

Laws  requiring  the  registration  of  certain  instruments  are 
not  invalid  as  to  existing  contracts  if  a  reasonable  time  is  left 
in  which  to  comply  with  them.102 

The  legislature  may  repeal  a  statute  under  which  certain 
contracts  were  illegal,  and  authorize  suits  thereon;103  e.  g.,  a 
statute  repealing  a  statute  prohibiting  stock-jobbing  and  mak- 
ing contracts  in  relation  thereto  void.104  Days  of  grace  are  no 
part  of  the  original  contract  expressed  in  a  negotiable  instru- 
ment, and  a  state  may  change  the  rule  as  to  the  allowance  of 
grace.105     An  act  requiring  an  oath  of  loyalty  from  an  attorney 

v.  Doe,  8  Blaekf.  371;  Savings  Bank  v.  Bates,  8  Conn.  505;  Savings 
Bank  v.  Allen,  28  Conn.  97;  Welch  v.  Wadsworth,  30  Conn.  155,  79 
Am.  Dee.. 239;  Nichols  v.  Gee,  30  Ark.  145;  Wilson  v.  Hardesty,  1  Md. 
Ch.  68;  Danville  v.  Pace,  25  Gratt.  10,  18  Am.  Rep.  &69;  Curtis  v. 
Leavitt,  15  N.  Y.  9.  But  see  Morton  v.  Rutherford,  18  Wis.  298. 
09  Sparks  v.  Clapper,  30  Ind.  204. 

100  Connecticut  Mut.  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Cushman,  108  IT.  S.  51,  2 
S.  Ct.  236,  27  L.  ed.  648;  Eobertson  v.  Van  Cleave,  129  Ind.  217,  26 
N.  E.  899,  15  L.  R.  A.  68.  But  see  Hillibert  v.  Porter,  28  Minn.  496, 
11  N.  W.  84. 

101  Tilton  v.  Swift,  40  Iowa,  78;  Underwood  v.  Lilly,  10  Serg.  &■ 
R.  97. 

102  Jackson  v.  Lamphire,  3  Pet.  280,  7  L.  ed.  679;  Vance  v.  Vance, 
108  TJ.  S.  514,  2  S.  Ct.  854,  27  L.  ed.  808;  Stafford  v.  Lick,  7  Cal.  479; 
Bird  v.  Keller,  77  Me.  270;  Tarpley  v.  Hamer,  9  Smedes  &  M.  310; 
Weil  v.  State,  46  Ohio  St.  450,  21  N.  E.  643;  Miles  v.  King,  5  Rich. 
146. 

103  Milne  v.  Huber.  3  McLean,  212.  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9617;  Hill  v. 
Smith,  Morr.  70;  Johnson  v.  Bentley,  16  Ohio,  97;  Lewis  v.  McElvain, 
16  Ohio,  347.  See,  also,  Barings  v.  Dabney,  19  Wall.  1,  22  L.  ed.  99; 
Van  Home  v.  Dorrance,  2  Dall.  304,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,S57;  Walker 
v.  Tipton,  3  Dana,  3. 

104  Washburn  v.  Franklin,  35  Barb.  599. 

105  Barlow  v.  Gregory,  31  Conn.  268. 


395  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

is  not  an  impairment  of  the  obligation  of  a  contract.1053 
Betterment  laws,  allowing  ejected  occupants  of  land  to  recover 
for  improvements,  are  also  valid.100 

The  legislature  may  enact  such  laws  as  have  for  their  object 
the  application  to  public  use  of  the  property  of  any  member  of 
the  community/07  provided  a  fair  and  just  equivalent  is 
awarded  to  the  owner.108  A  law  may  be  good  in  part  and  bad 
in  part;  it  may  be  bad  as  to  past,  and  good  as  to  future,  trans- 
actions.109 A  law  passed  before  a  contract  is  made  cannot  be 
said  to  impair  the  obligation  of  that  contract,110  and  the  legis- 
lature may  pass  a  declaratory  statute,  which,  although  inoper- 
ative as  to  past  transactions,  may  be  effective  as  to  future  con- 
tracts.111 So  a  law  may  prohibit  the  making  of  contracts  of 
certain  kinds.112  The  repeal  of  a  statute  is  no  more  void  than 
a  new  law  would  be  which  would  operate  on  the  contract  to 

105a  State  v.  Garesche,  36  Mo.  256. 

106  Albee  v.  May,  2  Paine,  74,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  134;  Griswold  v. 
Bragg,  48  Fed.  519;  Bacon  v.  Callender,  6  Mass,  303;  Lunrb  v.  Pinck- 
ney,  21  S.  C.  471;  Brown  v.  Storm,  4  Vt.  37;  Pacquette  v.  Picknesj, 
19  Wis.  219. 

107  Young  v.  MeKenzie,  3  Ga.  31;  Jackson  v.  Linn,  4  Litt.  323; 
Beekman  v.  Kailroad  Co.,  3  Paige,  45,  22  Am.  Dec.  679;  Bloodgood 
v.  Eailroad  Co.,  18  Wend.  9,  31  Am.  Dec.  313. 

108  People  v.  Piatt,  17  Johns.  195,  8  Am.  Dec.  362;  Bonaparte  v. 
Camden  etc.  Co.,  1  Bald.  220,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1617. 

109  Ogden  v.  Saunders,  12  Wheat.  213,  6  L.  ed.  606;  Berry  v.  Haines, 
2  Car.  Law  Eep.  428;  Commonwealth  v.  Kimball,  24  Pick.  359,  35  Am. 
Dec.  326;  Norris  v.  Boston,  45  Mass.  282;  State  v.  Paul,  5  E.  I.  185; 
Berry  v.  Iseman,  14  Eich.  129,  91  Am.  Dec.  262;  State  v.  Newton, 
59  Ind.  173. 

no  Bronson  v.  Kinzie,  1  How.  311,  11  L.  ed.  143;  Eailroad  Co.  *7. 
McClure,  10  Wall.  515,  19  L.  ed.  997;  Edwards  v.  Kearzey,  96  U. 
S.  600,  24  L.  ed.  793;  Provident  Inst.  etc.  v.  Mayor,  113  U.  S.  515, 
5  S.  C.t.  612,  2S  L.  ed.  1102;  Lehigh  Water  Co.  v.  Easton,  121  U.  3. 
391,  7  S.  Ct,  916,  30  L.  ed.  1059;  Pinney  v.  Nelson,  183  U.  S.  147,  22 
S.  Ct.  52,  46  L.  ed.  125;  Moore  v.  Fowler,  Hemp.  536,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
9761;  Blair  v.  Williams,  4  Litt.  34;  Eoby  v.  Boswell,  23  Ga.  51;  Powers 
v.  Dougherty,  23  Ga.  65;  Sparrow  v.  Eailroad  Co.,  7  Ind.  369;  Davis 
v.  Bronson,  6  Iowa,  410;  Burns  v.  Crawford,  34  Mo.  330. 

in   Postmaster  General  v.  Early,  12  Wheat.  14S,  6  L.  ed.  577. 

112   Churchman  v.  Martin,  54  Ind.  380. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  39G 

affect  its  validity,  construction  or  duration,  but  it  cannot  affect 
past  contracts.113  So  the  repeal  of  a  law  regulating  the 
manner  in  which  notice  of  protest  of  negotiable  paper  shall  be 
given  does  not  impair  the  obligation  of  any  contract,114  and  the 
repeal  of  a  statute  making  certain  contracts  unassignable  is  not 
unconstitutional  as  to  prior  contracts,  since  the  obligations  of 
such  contracts  are  in  nowise  changed  nor  their  terms  affected.115 

Relation  of  Obligation  and  Remedy. 

Eemedies  for  the  enforcement  of  a  contract  existing  at  the  time 
of  its  execution  enter  into,  and  form  a  material  part  of,  the  obli- 
gation of  the  contract,  which  the  state  may  not  so  change  as  to  im- 
pair a  substantial  right.116  A  statute  can  no  more  impair  the  ef- 
ficacy of  a  contract  by  changing  the  remedy  given  for  its  enforce- 
ment than  by  attacking  its  vitality  in  any  other  way.117  If  the 
obligation  is  impaired  it  is  immaterial  how  such  a  result  is  ac- 
complished, whether  by  acting  on  the  remedy  or  directly  on  the 
contract  itself.118  A  party  has  a  right  at  all  times  to  some 
adequate  and  available  remedy,119  and  so  an  act  denying  all 
remedy  is  unconstitutional.120     So  where  the  legal  obligation 

113  Gibbons  v.  Ogden,  9  Wheat.  1,  6  L.  ed.  23;  Atwater  v.  Wool- 
bridge,  6  Conn.  223;  Osborne  v.  Humphreys,  7  Conn.  335;  Landon  v. 
Litchfield,  11  Conn.  251. 

114  Levering  v.  Washington,  3  Minn.  323;  but  see  Farmers'  Bank 
of  Virginia  v.  Grinnell,  26  Gratt.  131. 

us  Harlan  v.  Sigler,  1  Morr.  39;  Ford  v.  Hale,  1  T.  B.  Mon.  23. 

116  Von  Hoffman  v.  Quincy,  4  Wall.  535,  18  L.  ed.  403;  Walker  v. 
Whitehead,  16  Wall.  314,  21  L.  ed.  357;  Gunn  v.  Barry,  15  Wall.  610, 
21  L.  ed.  212;  Peninsular  Iron  Works  v.  Union  etc.  Co.,  100  Wis.  483, 
69  Am.  St.  Rep.  934,  76  N.  W.  359,  42  L.  E.  A.  331;  Johnson  v.  Hig- 
gins,  3  Met.  (Ky.)  566;  Beverly  v.  Barnitz,  55  Kan.  466,  49  Am.  St. 
Rep.'  257,  42  Pac.  723,  31  L.  R.  A.  74;  Cochran  v.  D'Arcy,  5  Ricn. 
125;  Spangler  v.  Green,  21  Colo.  505,  52  Am.  St.  Rep.  259,  42  Pac. 
674. 

117  Walker  v.  Whitehead,  16  Wall.  314,  21  L.  ed.  357. 

118  Skinner  v.  Holt,  9  S.  Dak.  427,  62  Am.  St.  Rep.  878,  69  N.  W. 
595;  Beverly  v.  Barnitz,  55  Kan.  466,  49  Am.  St.  Rep.  257,  42  Pac. 
725,'  31  L.  R.  A.  74;  Spangler  v.  Green,  21  Colo.  505,  52  Am.  St.  Rep. 
259.  42  Pac.  674. 

119  Coffman  v.  Bank.  40  Miss.  29,  90  Am.  Dec.  311. 

120  West  v.  Sansom,  44  Ga.  295. 


397  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

is  diminished,  suspended  or  destroyed  by  relaxing  or  abolishing 
the  legal  remedy,  the  obligation  of  the  contract  is  impaired.121 
The  validity  and  remedy  of  a  contract  are  inseparable;122 
without  the  remedy,  the  contract  in  the  sense  of  law  ceases  to 
exist,  and  one  of  the  tests  as  to  whether  a  contract  has  been  im- 
paired is  whether  its  value  has  been  diminished;123  and  if  the 
law  is  so  changed  that  the  means  of  enforcing  it  are  materially 
unpaired,  the  obligation  of  the  contract  no  longer  remains  the 
same.124  This  result  may  be  accomplished  by  taking  away  a 
remedy  entirely,125  or  by  burdening  the  proceedings  by  new 
conditions  or  restrictions.126 

121  McCraeken  v.  Hayward,  2  How.  612,  11  L.  ed.  397;  Lapsley  v. 
Brashears,  4  Litt.  27. 

122  Walker  v.  Whitehead,  16  Wall.  314,  21  L.  ed.  357;  Von  Hoffman 
v.  Quincy,  4  Wall.  535,  18  L.  ed.  403;  Scaine  v.  Belleville,  39  N.  J. 
10. 

123  Von  Hoffman  v.  Quincy,  4  Wall.  552,  18  L.  ed.  403;  Ochiltree 
v.  Eailroad  Co.,  21  Wall.  252,  22  L.  ed.  546;  Kring  v.  Missouri,  107 
U.  S.  233,  2  S.  Ct.  443,  27  L.  ed.  506;  Bobert  v.  Coco,  25  La.  Ann. 
199;  Lessley  v.  Pliipps,  49  Mo.  790;  Commissioners'  Court  v.  Bather, 
48  Ala.  433;  Adams  v.  Creen,  100  Ala.  218,  14  South.  54;  Biggs  v. 
Martin,  5  Ark.  50G,  41  Am.  Dec.  103;  Davis  v.  Pierse,  7  Minn.  13, 
82  Am.  Dec.  65. 

124  Bronson  v.  Kinzie,  1  How.  311,  11  L.  ed.  143;  McCraeken  v. 
Hayward,  2  How.  612,  11  L.  ed.  397;  Gantly  v.  Ewing,  3  How.  717, 
11  L.  ed.  794;  Curran  v.  Arkansas,  15  How.  304,  14  L.  ed.  705;  Butz 
v.  Muscatine,  8  Wall.  583,  19  L.  ed.  490;  Walker  v.  Whitehead,  10 
Wall.  314,  21  L.  ed.  357;  Olcott  v.  Supervisors,  16  Wall.  678,  21  L. 
ed.  382;  Gunn  v.  Barry,  15  Wall.  623,  21  L.  ed.  212;  Jackson  v.  Lamp- 
hire,  3  Pet.  280,  7  L.  ed.  679;  Edwards  v.  Kearzey,  96  U.  S.  601,  24 
L.  ed.  793;  Memphis  v.  United  States,  97  U.  S.  295,  24  L.  ed.  920; 
Taylor  v.  Stearns,  18  Gratt.  244;  Nevitt  v.  Bank,  14  Miss.  513;  Vou 
Baumbach  v.  Bade,  9  Wis.  559,  76  Am.  Dec.  283;  Woodruff  v.  Scruggs, 
27  Ark.  26,  11  Am.  Bep.  777;  Smith  v.  Morse,  2  Cal.  524;  Watkinj 
v.  Glenn,  55  Kan.  417,  40  Pac.  316;  Webster  v.  Eose,  6  Heisk.  93,  19 
Am.  Bep.  583. 

125  Woodruff  v.  Trapnall.  10  How.  190,  13  L.  ed.  383;  Eichmond 
E.  E.  Co.  v.  Louisiana  B.  E.  Co.,  13  How.  71,  14  L.  ed.  5'5;  Bingham- 
ton  Bridge  Case,  3  Wall.  51,  18  L.  ed.  137;  East  Hartford  v.  Hartford 
Bridge  Co.,  10  How.  535,  13  L.  ed.  518;  Boston  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Salem 
etc.  B.  E.  Co.,  2  Gray,  1;  Piscataqua  Bridge  v.  New  Haven  Bridgo 
Co.,  7  N".  H.  35;  Brewster  v.  Hough,  10  N.  H.  138;  Johnson  v.  Dun- 
car.  3  Mart.  531,  6  Am.  Dec.  75. 

126  Bronson   v.  Kinzie,  1  How.   311,  11   L.   ed.   143;   McCraeken  r. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  398 
Power  of  Legislature  Over  Remedy. 


While  the  obligation  of  a  contract  may  be  impaired  as  ef- 
fectually by  striking  at  the  remedy,  and  the  states  are  pro- 
hibited from  impairing  that  obligation  under  the  guise  of  regu- 
lating the  remedy,  yet  a  violation  of  the  obligation  is  not  nec- 
essarily implied  from  a  reasonable  change  in  the  mode  of  en- 
forcing the  contract.127  Unless  it  substantially  lessens  the 
rights  of  the  parties,128  the  change  must  necessarily  embody  the 
intent  of  the  parties.129 

As  has  been  said,  the  remedy  for  the  enforcement  of  a  con- 
tract forms  a  material  part  of  its  obligation,  and  the  existence 
of  a  remedy  is  essential  to  the  value  of  a  contract,  but  the 
remedy  constitutes  no  part  of  the  contract  itself,  and  may  be 
changed  or  modified  at  the  will  of  the  legislature,130  and  this 
power  of  the  legislature  to  regulate  the  remedy  and  modes  of 
proceeding  for  the  enforcement  of  a  contract  is  subject  only  to 
the  restriction  that  it  cannot  be  so  exercised  as  to  take  away 

Hayward,  2  How.  612,  11  L.  ed.  397;  Curran  v.  Arkansas.  15  How. 
304,  14  L.  ed.  705;  Biggs  v.  Martin,  5  Ark.  506,  41  Am.  Dec.  103; 
Mundy  v.  Monroe,  1  Mich.  68;  Commercial  Bank  etc.  v.  Chambers, 
8  Smedes  &  M.  (Miss.)  9;  Penrose  v.  Eeed,  2  Grant,  472;  West  Sav- 
ings Fund  v.  Philadelphia,  31  Pa.  St.  175;  Putnam  v.  Bond,  15  Wis. 
20. 

127  Mason  v.  Haile,  12  Wheat.  370,  6  L.  ed.  660;  Templeton  v. 
Home,  82  111.  491;  Bader  v.  S.  E.  "Road  Dist.,  37  X.  J.  273;  Baldwin 
v.  Newark,  38  N.  J.  160;   Billings  v.  Eiggs,  56  111.  483. 

128  Bronson  v.  Kinzie,  1  How.  311,  11  L.  ed.  143;  Sturges  v. 
Crowninshield,  4  Wheat.  122,  4  L.  ed.  529;  Woodruff  v.  Trapnall,  10 
How.  190,  13  L.  ed.  383;  Hawthorne  v.  Calef,  2  Wall.  10,  17  L.  ed, 
776;  Walker  v.  Whitehead,  16  Wall.  314,  21  L.  ed.  357. 

129  Commercial  Bank  v.  State,  12   Miss.  439. 

130  Sturges  v.  Crowninshield,  4  Wheat.  200,  4  L.  ed.  529;  Ogden 
v.  Saunders,  12  Wheat.  262,  284,  349,  6  L.  ed.  606;  Bronson  v. 
Kinzie,  1  How.  315,  11  L.  ed.  143;  Gunn  v.  Barry,  15  Wall.  623, 
21  L.  ed.  212;  Walker  v.  Whitehead,  16  Wall.  318,  21  L.  ed. 
357;  Hill  v.  Merchants'  Ins.  Co.,  134  U.  S.  527,  10  S.  Ct.  589,  33 
L.  ed.  994;  Woodhull  v.  Wagner,  1  Baldw.  298,  301,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
17,975;  Towne  v.  Smith,  1  Wood  &  M.  130,  131,  Fed  Cas.  No.  14,115; 
McCormick  v.  Eusch,  15  Iowa,  136,  83  Am.  Dec.  408;  In  re  Penni- 
man,  11  E.  I.  33S,  341;  Lowden  v.  Moses,  3  McCord,  102;  Woodfin  v. 
Hopper,  4  Humph.  21;  Baldwin  v.  Newark,  38  N.  J.  L.  158;  Neass 
V.  Mercer,  15  Barb.  318;  People  v.  Carpenter,  46  Barb.  619. 


399  Obligatiox  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10.  CI.  1 

all  remedy  upon  the  contract  or  impose  burdens  or  restrictions 
which  will  materially  impair  its  value.131  Thus  the  legislature 
may  alter,  modify,  or  even  take  away  a  remedy,132  provided  a 
substantial  remedy  is  left,133  or  provided  a  new,  adequate  and 
efficacious  remedy  is  substituted.134 

A  statute  may  give  a  remedy  not  already  existing,135  and 
this  notwithstanding  the  new  remedy  may  be  less  convenient,  or 
more  tardy  or  difficult.136  Where,  however,  the  application  of 
the  new  remedy  is  so  expensive  and  difficult  as  to  render  it 
valueless  and  inoperative  the  prohibition  applies  and  the  stat- 
ute is  void.137     If  a  remedy  given  be  as  good  as  that  taken 

131  Tennessee  v.  Sneed,  96  TJ.  S.  74,  24  L.  ed.  610;  Terry  v.  Ander- 
son, 95  TJ.  S.  637,  24  L.  ed.  365;  South  Carolina  v.  Gaillard,  101  TJ. 
S.  438,  25  L.  ed.  937;  Briscoe  v.  Anketell,  28  Miss.  361,  61  Am.  Dec. 
553;  Van  Rensselaer  v.  Eead,  26  N.  Y.  55S;  Ward  v.  Hubbard,  6 J 
Tex.  559. 

132  Sturges  v.  Crowninshield,  4  Wheat.  200,  4  L.  ed.  529;  Ogden 
v.  Saunders,  12  Wheat.  349,  6  L.  ed.  606;  Bronson  v.  Kinzie,  1  How. 
311,  11  L.  ed.  143;  Von  Hoffman  v.  Quincy,  4  Wall.  535,  18  L.  ed. 
403;  Crawford  v.  Branch  Bank  of  Mobile,  7  How.  279,  12  L.  ed. 
700;  Kenyon  v.  Stewart,  44  Pa.  St.  179;  Stocking  v.  Hunt,  3  Denio, 
274;  Corner  v.  Miller,  1  Bank.  Eeg.  99;  In  re  Jordan,  8  Bank.  Reg. 
186,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7514;  Bruce  v.  Schuyler,  4  Gilm.  221,  46  Am.  Dec. 
447;  Wood  v.  Child,  20  111.  209;  Read  v.  Frankfort  Bank,  23  Mo. 
318;  Penrose  v.  Erie  Canal  Co.,  56  Pa.  St.  46,  93  Am.  Dec.  778; 
Lord  v.  Chadbourne,  42  Me.  429,  66  Am.  Dec.  290;  Mason  v.  Waitc, 
5  111.  134;  Evans  v.  Montgomery,  4  Watts  &  S.  218;  Conkey  v.  Hart, 
14  N.  Y.  22. 

133  Cutts  v.  Hardee,  38  Ga.  350;  Lockhart  v.  Usry,  28  Ga.  345; 
State  v.  Judge,  12  La.  352;   State  v.  Assessors,  43  N.  J.  L.  338. 

134  Louisiana  v.  Pillsbury,  105  TJ.  S.  301,  26  L.  ed.  1090;  Poin- 
dexter  v.  Greenhow,  114  TJ.  S.  303,  5  S.  Ct.  962,  29  L.  ed.  1S5;  City 
etc.  R,  R,  Co.  v.  Xew  Orleans,  157  TJ.  S.  224,  15  S.  Ct.  581,  39  L. 
ed.  679. 

135  Freeborn  v.  Smith,  2  Wall.  175,  17  L.  ed.  922;  Foster  v.  Esses; 
Bank,  16  Mass.  245;  Rich  v.  Flanders,  39  N.  H.  325;  Schenley  v. 
Commonwealth,  36  Pa.   St.   29,   78   Am.  Dec.  359;   Hepburn  v.   Curts, 

7  Watts,  300,  32  Am.  Dec.  760;  Wheat  v.  State,  Minor,  199;  Blann  v. 
State,  39  Ala.  353,  84  Am.  Dec.  788. 

136  Bronson  v.  Kinzie,  1  How.  311,  11  L.  ed.  143;  Guild  v.  Rogers, 

8  Barb.  502;  Kirkman  v.  Bird,  22  Utah,  100,  61  Pac.  338,  S3  Am. 
St.  Eep.  774,  58  L.  R.  A.  669. 

137  Riggs  v.  Martin,  5  Ark.  506,  41  Am.  De-.  103. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  400 

away  no  contract  obligation  is  impaired.138  If,  when  a  con- 
tract was  in  ado,  there  was  no  legal  remedy  for  its  enforcement, 
the  legislature  may,  without  impairing  its  obligation,  repeal  a 
statute  subsequently  passed  providing  a  remedy.139  A  mere 
change  in  one  of  two  remedies  does  not  impair  any  contract  ob- 
ligation,140  and  this  is  true  in  case  of  a  law  abolishing  abso- 
lutely one  of  two  remedies.141  So  where  the  law  has  conferred 
an  extraordinary  remedy  on  a  certain  class  of  creditors  a  stat- 
ute abolishing  that  remedy  and  leaving  the  ordinary  remedy 
for  the  collection  of  debts,  is  constitutional.142  Although  a 
particular  remedy  is  agreed  upon  in  a  contract,  a  law  substi- 
tuting another  equally  efficacious  remedy  is  unobjectionable;143 
but  this  is  not  true  where  the  remedy  provided  at  the  inception 
of  a  contract  is  absolutely  essential  to  the  contract,  and  the 
legislature  cannot  abrogate  it.144  So  long  as  contracts  are  sub- 
mitted to  the  ordinary  and  regular  course  of  justice,  and  ex- 
isting remedies  are  substantially  preserved,  the  obligation  of 
the  contracts  is  not  impaired,145  and  a  mere  alteration  in  the 
remedy  gives  no  ground  for  objection.143  So  the  remedy  for 
the  enforcement  of  a  right  may  be  changed  from  equity  to  law, 

138  Mason  v.  Haile,  12  Wheat.  370,  6  L.  ed.  660;  Louisiana  v.  New 
Orleans,  102  IT.  S.  203,  26  L.  ed.  132;  New  Orleans  v.  Morris,  3  Wood-;, 
115,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,183;  Milne  v.  Huber,  3  McLean,  212,  Fed.  Gas. 
No.  9617;  Brandon  v.  Gaines,  7  Humph.  130;  Simmons  v.  Hanover, 
40  Mass.  188;  Commercial  Bank  v.  State,  12  Miss.  439;  Wheat  v. 
State,  Minor,  199;  Davis  v.  Ballard,  1  J.  J.  Marsh.  563;  McMillan  v. 
Sprague,  4  How.  (Miss.)  647,  35  Am.  Dec.  412;  Lapsley  v.  Brashears, 
4  Litt.  47;  Townsend  v.  Townsend,  Peck  (Tenn.),  1,  14  Am.  Dec.  722. 

139  Young  v.  Oregon,  1  Or.  213. 

140  Hey  ward   v.  Judd,  4  Minn.   483. 

141  Watts  v.  Everett,  47  Iowa,  269;  State  v.  Gaillard,  9  Rep.  725. 

142  Stocking  v.   Hunt,   3   Denio,  274. 

143  Conkey  v.  Hart,  14  N.  Y.  22. 

144  Thompson    v.    Commonwealth,    81    Pa.    St.    314. 

145  Holmes  v.  Lansing,  3  Johns.  Cas.  73. 

14G  Bronson  v.  Kinzie,  1  How.  311,  11  L.  ed.  143;  Woodruff  v. 
Trapnall,  10  How.  190,  13  L.  ed.  383;  Hawthorne  v.  Calef,  2  Wall. 
10,  17  L.  ed.  776;  Morse  v.  Goold,  11  N.  Y.  281;  Jones  v.  Davis,  6 
Nev.  33;  Richardson  v.  Akin,  87  111.  141;  Templeton  v.  Home,  82  III. 
491;  Cox  v.  Berry,  13  Ga.  306. 


401  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

or  vice  versa.147   and  mere  incidental  delay  following  from  a 
general  law  does  not  impair  the  remedy.148 

The  states  may  pass  remedial  laws  which  are  retrospective,149 
but  not  such  as  impair  vested  rights,  or  create  personal  liabil- 
ities, or  impose  new  obligations  or  duties.150  The  sole  fact 
that  such  a  law  purports  to  be  retrospective  in  its  operation  is 
no  objection  to  it.151  The  giving  of  an  additional  remedy  for 
the  enforcement  of  a  contract  or  debt  is  not  objectionable  under 
the  obligation  clause,152  especially  where  the  new  remedy 
simply  tends  to  make  enforcement  more  speedy  and  certain.153 
So  a  state  may  give  an  additional  and  more  summary  remedy 
for  breach  of  contract,  if  it  does  not  thereby  enlarge  the  obli- 
gation; e.  g.,  by  mandamus.154  A  statute  authorizing  an  at- 
tachment on  a  claim  not  yet  due  does  not  contravene  this 
clause,155  nor  does  a  statute  providing  a  more  efficacious  and 
speedy   remedy  for  the  collection   of   a   claim   for   labor   per- 

147  Paschal  v.  Whit  sell,  11  Ala.  472;  Bethune  v.  Dougherty,  30 
Ga.  770;  Baugher  v.  Nelson,  9  Gill,  299;  Bartlett  v.  Lang,  2  Ala.  401. 

148  Eathbone  v.  Bradford,  1  Ala.  312;  Jones  v.  Crittenden,  1  Car. 
Law  Bep.  385,  6  Am.  Dec.  531;  Townsend  v.  Townsend,  Peck  (Tenn.), 
1,  14  Am.  Dec.  722;  Wood  v.  Wood,  14  Bich.  148. 

149  Freeborn  v.  Smith,  2  Wall.  175,  17  L.  ed.  922;  Foster  v.  Essex 
Bank,  16  Mass.  245;  Bich  v.  Flanders,  39  N.  H.  304;  Searcy  v. 
Stubbs,  12  Ga.     437;  Johnson  v.  Boockogy,  23  Ga.  183. 

150  Brandon  v.  Gaines,  7  Humph.  130;  Bich  v.  Flanders,  39  N.  H. 
304;  De  Cordova  v.  Galveston,  4  Tex.  470;  Hope  v.  Johnson,  2  Yerg. 
125;  Van  Zandt  v.  Waddell,  2  Yerg.  260;  Coffin  v.  Bich,  45  Me.  507, 
71  Am.  Dec.  559;  Kennebec  Purch.  v.  Laboree,  2  Me.  275. 

151  United  States  v.  Samperyac,  1  Hemp.  118. 

152  Hope  v.  Johnson,  2  Yerg.  125. 

153  Bichardson  v.  Akin,  87  111.  138;  Chapin  v.  Billings,  91  111.  539; 
State  v.  New  Orleans  City  etc.  By.  Co.,  42  La.  Ann.  550,  7  South. 
606;  Litchfield  v.  Verncon,  41  N.  Y.  123;  Brown  v.  Brittain,  84  N. 
C.  552;  Winn  v.  Bowles,  6  Munf.  23;  Paine  v.  Woodworth,  15  Wis. 
298. 

154  New  Orleans  etc.  B.  B.  Co.  v.  Louisiana,  157  U.  S.  224,  15  S. 
Ct.  581,  39  L.  ed.  679;  Union  Street  By.  Co.  v.  Snow,  168  U.  S.  707, 
18  S.  Ct.  948,  42  L.  ed.  1214;  Bed  Eiver  Valley  Bank  v.  Craig,  18J. 
U.   S.   558,  21  S.   Ct.  703,  45  L.  ed.  994. 

155  Mosher  v.  Bay  Circuit  Judge,  108  Mich.  503,  66  N.  W.  384. 

Notes  on  Constitution — 26 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  402 

formed.156  A  statute  may  change  the  remedies  available  be- 
fore judgment,  but  not  those  after  judgment  so  as  to  materially 
affect  rights  under  a  contract,157  and  if  the  change  materially 
affects  rights  and  interests  it  is  so  far  a  violation  of  the  obliga- 
tion.138 The  grant  of  a  new  remedy  by  way  of  review  is 
valid,159  and  the  state  may  provide  for  new  trials  and  create 
new  tribunals  of  review,  in  order  to  detect  fraudulent  grants 
or  reverse  fraudulent  judgments,  without  impairing  contract 
obligations.160  The  state  may  suspend  the  remedy  for  the  en- 
forcement of  a  contract  in  time  of  war  and  other  controlling 
circumstances;  such  a  statute  conduces  to  the  administration  of 
justice.161 

What  not  an  Impairment  of  Kemedy. 


The  right  to  imprison  for  debt  is  never  part  of  a  contract  and 
a  law  abolishing  such  imprisonment  does  not  impair  any  ob- 
ligation,162 such  a  law  bars  arrest  upon  a  judgment  debt,163 
and  bail  bonds  in  effect  at  the  time  of  its  passage  are  thereby 
discharged.164     A  statute  may  take  away  the  remedy  by  at- 

156  Paine  v.  Woodworth,  15  Wis.  298. 

157  Oliver  v.  McClure,  28  Ark.  555;  Woods  v.  Buie,  5  How.  (Miss.) 
285;  Lockhart  v.  Usry,  28  Ga.  345;  Read  v.  Frankfort  Bank,  23  Me. 
318;  Oriental  Bank  v.  Freeze,  IS  Me.  109,  36  Am.  Dec.  701. 

158  Green  v.  Biddle,  8  Wheat.  1,  5  L.  ed.  547;  Von  Hoffman  v. 
Quincy,  4  Wall.  535,  18  L.  ed.  403;  Billings  v.  Riggs,  56  111.  4S3. 

159  Stephens  v.  Cherokee  Nation,  174  U.  S.  478,  19  S.  Ct.  722,  43 
L.  ed.  1041. 

160  League  v.  De  Young,  11  How.  202,  203,  13  L.  ed.  657;  Herman 
v.  Phalen,  14  How.  79.  But  see  In  re  Handley's  Estate,  15  Utah, 
212,  62  Am.  St.  Eep.  926,  49  Pac.  829. 

161  Johnson  v.  Duncan,  3  Mart.  531,  6  Am.  Dec.  75;  Ex  parte 
Pollard,  40  Ala.  77. 

162  Sturges  v.  Crowninshield,  4  Wheat.  200,  4  L.  ed.  529;  Beers 
v.  Houghton,  9  Pet.  359,  9  L.  ed.  145;  Von  Hoffman  v.  Quincy,  4 
Wall.  553;  Penniman's  Case,  103  TJ.  S.  717,  26  L.  ed.  602;  Woodhull 
v.  Wagner,  1  Baldw.  298,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,975;  Towne  v.  Smith,  1 
Wood.  &  M.  130,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,115;  McCormick  v.  Rusch,  15  Iowo, 
136,  83  Am.  Dec.  40S;  In  re  Penniman,  11  R.  I.  338;  Lowden  v.  Moses, 
3  McCord,   102;  Woodfin  v.  Hopper,  4  Humph.  21. 

163  In  re  Nichols,  8  R.  I.  55;  Ex  parte  Hardy,  68  Ala.  318. 

164  Mason  v.  Haile,  12  Wheat.  378,  6  L.  ed.  660;  Beers  v.  Hough- 


403  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

tachment,165  or  may  provide  for  amendments  in  attachment 
suits.166  Attachment  laws  do  not  impair  the  obligation  of  con- 
tracts between  the  garnishee  and  the  debtor,167  and  a  statute 
authorizing  attachments  may  apply  to  actions  commenced  be- 
fore its  passage.168  The  legislature  may  deprive  a  plaintiff  in 
ejectment  of  the  right  to  recover  mesne  profits  in  that  form  of 
action,169  or  may  provide  that  judgments  in  ejectment  shall  not 
be  rendered  until  improvements  are  paid  for.170  The  remedies 
provided  for  the  enforcement  of  contracts  of  lease  are  no  part 
of  those  contracts;  accordingly  the  remedy  of  forcible  entry 
and  detainer  may  be  abrogated  without  affecting  any  obliga- 
tion,171 and,  a  fortiori,  a  statute  giving  a  speedier  remedy  for 
unlawful  detention  would  be  constitutional.172  A  statute  ex- 
tending the  provisions  of  a  law  relative  to  the  remedies  avail- 
able to  landlords  to  grants  or  leases  in  fee  reserving  rent  does 
not  impair  the  obligation  of  grants  and  leases  made  prior  to 
its  passage.173  The  remedy  of  distress  for  rent  is  not  an  es- 
sential part  of  the  contract  contained  in  a  lease,  and  it  may  be 
abrogated  by  statute,  provided  a  substantial  remedy  is  left,174 
and  such  a  statute  is  invalid  only  as  to  cases  where  the  right  to 
distrain  had  accrued  before  its  enactment.175 

ton,  9  Pet.  359,  9  L.  ed.  145;  Newton  v.  Tibbatts,  7  Ark.  153;  Towsey 
v.  Avery,  11  Ohio,  93;  Bronson  v.  Newberry,  2  Doug.  (Mich.)    47. 

165  Darnley  v.  State  Bank,  15  Ark.  16;  Krebs  v.  State  Bank,  io 
Ark.  19;  Allis  v.  State  Bank,  15  Ark.  19;  Leathers  v.  Shipbuilders' 
Bank,  40  Me.  386;  Bigelow  v.  Pritehard,  38  Mass.  169.  But  see 
Peninsular  etc.  Works  v.  Union  etc.  Co.,  100  Wis.  488,  69  Am.  St. 
Eep.  934,  76  N.  W.  359,  42  L.  E.  A.  331. 

166  Knight  v.  Dorr,  36  Mass.  48. 

167  Philbrick  v.  Philbrick,  39  N.  H.  468;  Klaus  v.  City,  34  Wis. 
628. 

16S  Coosa  Eiver  S.  Co.  v.  Barclay,  30  Ala.  120. 

169  Society  for  the  Propagation  etc.  v.  Town  of  Pawlet,  4  Pet. 
509,  7  L.  ed.  927. 

170  Griswold  v.  Bragg,  18  Blatchf.  202,  48  Fed.  519. 

171  Drehman  v.  Stifle,  8  Wall.  595,  19  L.  ed.  508. 

172  Brubaker  v.  Poage,  1  T.  B.  Mon.  123,  128. 

173  Van   Eensselaer  v.   Smith,  27   Barb.   104. 

174  Guild  v.  Kogers,  8  Barb.  502;  Van  Eensselaer  v.  Snyder,  13  N. 
Y.  299;  Conkey  v.  Hart,  14  N.  Y.  22. 

175  Madland  v.  Benland,  24  Minn.  372. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  or  Contracts.  404 

"Without  impairing  any  contract  obligation  the  legislature 
may  pass  an  act  curing  defective  levies  and  sales  under  execu- 
tion,176 or  mitigate  the  severity  of  the  penalties  in  bonds,177 
or  may  extend  the  time  for  the  advertisement  of  mortgage 
sales,178  or  diminish  the  period  for  publication  of  notices  of 
foreclosure,179  or  may  give  to  debtors  the  right  to  procure  obli- 
gations of  their  creditors  and  use  them  as  setoffs.180  So,  also, 
the  legislature  may  change  the  remedy  on  a  judgment,181  may 
repeal  a  judgment  tax  as  to  judgments  on  torts,182  or  may 
abolish  judgment  '  liens,1 82a  or  may  alter  the  remedy  for 
the  enforcement  of  forfeiture  of  corporate  charters.183  A 
guardian  and  his  bondsmen  have  no  vested  right  in  the 
remedy  on  bonds  existing  when  the  bond  was  executed 
and  a  change  in  such  remedy  is  unobjectionable.184  A 
change  in  the  law  prescribing  the  order  of  payment  of  debts  of 
decedents  likewise  impairs  no  contract  obligation  or  vested 
right.185  A  provision  that  in  money  judgments  the  decree 
shall  be  for  the  judgment  and  interest  is  valid,186  and  the 
legislature  may  require  creditors  of  corporations  to  act  or  be 
bound  by  the  action  of  other  creditors ;  such  a  requirement  goes 
only  to  the  remedy  for  the  recovery  of  their  claims.187 

176  Mather  v.  Chapman,  6  Conn.  54;  Beach  v.  Walker,  6  Conn.  190,. 
Norton  v.  Pettibone,  7  Conn.  319,  18  Am.  Dec.  116;  Booth  v.  Booth, 
7  Conn.  350;  Menges  v.  Wertman,  1  Pa.  St.  218;  Bell  v.  Boberts,  13 
Vt.  582;  Selsby  v.  Eedlon,  19  Wis.  17. 

177  Wood  v.  Kennedy,  19  Ind.  68;  Potter  v.  Sturdevant,  4  Me.  154. 
17S  Von  Banmbach  v.  Bade,  9  Wis.  559,  76  Am.  Dee.  283;   Stark- 

weather  v.  Hawes,  10  Wis.  125. 

179  Hopkins  v.  Jones,  22  Ind.  310;   Webb  v.  Moore,  25  Ind.  4. 

180  Amy  v.  Shelby  County  Taxing  District,  114  U.  S.  393,  5  S.  Ct. 
895,  29  L.  ed.  172;  Vermont  State  Bank  v.  Porter,  5  Day,  316. 

181  Williams  v.  Waldo,  14  111.  264;  Grosvenor  v.  Chesley,  48  Me. 
369;   Sprott  v.  Eeid,  3  G.  Greene,  489. 

182  Louisiana  v.  New  Orleans,  109  U.  S.  285,  3  S.  Ct.  211,  27  L. 
ed.  936. 

182a  Moore  v.  Holland,  16  S.  Ct.  15. 

183  Aurora  T.  Co.  v.  Holthouse,   7    fml.   59. 

184  Winslow  v.  People,  117  111.152,  7  N.  E.  135. 

185  McLure  v.  Melton,  24  S.  C.  559,  5S  Am.  Eep.  272. 

186  Fleming  v.  Holt,  12  W.  Va.  144. 

187  Gilfillan  v.  Union  Canal  Co.,  109  U.  S.  404,  3  S.  Ct.  304,  27  L. 
ed.  977,  affirming  93  Pa.  St.  95. 


405  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

An  act  compelling  the  acceptance  of  anything  but  the  stipu- 
lated payment  impairs  the  obligation  of  a  contract,  and  where 
a  creditor  is  entitled  to  payment  in  lawful  money  the  legisla- 
ture cannot  deprive  him  of  that  right.188  So  where  existing 
law  permits  the  recovery  of  interest  on  overdue  coupons,  a  sub- 
sequent law  declaring  interest  not  recoverable  upon  interest  is 
inapplicable  to  such  existing  contracts;189  but  the  discretion 
exercised  by  the  legislature  in  prescribing  what  damages,  by 
way  of  interest,  for  delay  must  be  allowed  in  the  payment  of 
judgments  is  based  upon  reasons  of  public  policy,  and  is  out- 
side the  sphere  of  private  contracts.190  So,  also,  an  act  provid- 
ing for  the  forfeiture  of  land  by  judicial  proceeding  for  non- 
payment of  interest  is  no  part  of  the  purchasers  contract,  and 
a  subsequent  act  providing  for  forfeiture  without  judicial  pro- 
ceeding impairs  no  obligation.191  Where  a  deed  of  trust  au- 
thorizes the  trustee  to  sell  upon  default  in  payment  of  certain 
notes,  the  sale  cannot  be  suspended  by  statute  for  a  fixed 
term.192  Acts  changing  remedies  of  or  against  corporations 
are  not  repugnant  to  the  obligation  clause;  e.  g.,  an  act  giving 
a  corporation  a  summary  remedy  by  a  proceeding  in  the  nature 
of  attachment  against  its  debtors;19-"  a  law  changing  the  mode 
of  administering  a  remedy  provided  in  a  charter;194  a  law 
authorizing  a  bank  to  sue  in  its  own  name  upon  notes  given 
to  the  cashier  for  its  use;195  a  law  providing  for  the  single 
liability  of  stockholders,196  or  changing  the  remedy  for  enforc- 
ing stockholder's  liability,197  or  a  law  changing  the  method  of 
serving  process  on  corporations.198 

188  Blount  v.  Windley,  95  U.  S.  179,  24  L.   ed.  424. 

189  Koshkonong  v.  Burton,  104  TJ.  S.  679,  26  L.  ed.  886. 

190  Morley  v.  Lake  Shore  etc.  By.,  146  U.  S.  171,  13  S.  Ct.  54, 
36  L.  ed.  925. 

191  Wilson  v.  Standefer,  184  U.  S.  409,  46  L.  ed.  612. 

192  Tayler  v.  Stearns,  18  Gratt.  244. 

193  Bank  of  Columbia  v.  Okely,  4  Wheat.  243,  4  L.  ed.  559. 

194  Bank  of  Columbia  v.  Okely,-  4  Wheat.   245,  4  L.  ed.  559. 

195  Crawford  v.  Bank  of  Mobile,  7  How.  282,  12  L.  ed.  700. 

196  Ochiltree  v.  Eailroad,  21  Wall.  255,  22  L.  ed.  546. 

197  Fourth  Nat.  Bank  v.  Francklyn,  120  U.  S.  755,  7  S.  Ct.  757, 
30  L.  ed.  825. 

198  Eailroad  Co.  v.  Hecht,  95  U.  S.  170,  24  L.  ed.  423. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  406 

Acts  of  Limitation. 

Statutes  of  limitation  affect  only  the  remedy  given  for  the 
enforcement  of  contracts  and  not  the  merits;199  they  rather 
establish  that  certain  circumstances  shall  amount  to  evidence 
that  a  contract  has  been  performed  than  dispense  with  its  per- 
formance.200 Being  part  of  the  remedy,  statutes  of  limitation 
may  be  modified  by  shortening  the  time  prescribed  at  the  will  of 
the  legislature,  provided'a  reasonable  time  is  left  for  the  com- 
mencement of  an  action  before  the  bar  takes  effect.201  The 
reasonableness  of  the  time  allowed  for  bringing  actions  on  exist- 
ing contracts  is  the  true  test  of  the  validity  of  such  statutes,202 

199  Brent  v.  Bank  of  Washington,  10  Pet.  617,  9  L.  ed.  547;  Town- 
send  v.  Jemison,  9  How.  413,  13  L.  ed.  194;  Campbell  v.  Holt,  115  U. 
S.  626,  6  S.  Ct.  209,  29  L.  ed.  483. 

200  Sturges  v.  Crowninshield,  4  "Wheat.  207,  4  L.  ed.  529. 

201  Jackson  v.  Lanrphire>,  3  Pet.  290,  7  L.  ed.  679;  Hawkins  v. 
Barney,  5  Pet.  468,  8  L.  ed.  190;  Bronson  v.  Kinzie,  1  How.  315,  il 
L.  ed.  143;  McCracken  v.  Hayward,  2  How.  613,  11  L.  ed.  397; 
Phalen  v.  Virginia,  8  How.  168,  12  L.  ed.  1030;  Terry  v.  Anderson, 
95  U.  S.  632,  24  L.  ed.  365;  Koshkonong  v.  Burton,  104  U.  S.  675, 
26  L.  ed.  886;  Vance  v.  Vance,  108  U.  S.  521,  2  S.  Ct.  859,  27  L.  ed. 
808;  Christmas  v.  Eussell,  5  Wall.  290,  18  L.  ed.  475;  Sohn  v. 
Wattexson,  17  Wall.  596,  21  L.  ed.  737;  Mitchell  v.  Clark,  110  U.  S. 
643,  4  S.  Ct.  170,  2S  L.  ed.  279;  Wheeler  v.  Jackson,  137  U.  S.  255, 
11  S.  Ct.  76,  34  L.  ed.  659;  Turner  v.  New  York,  168  U.  S.  94,  IS 
S.  Ct.  38,  42  L.  ed.  392;  Samples  v.  Bank,  1  Woods,  523,  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  12,278;  Barker  v.  Jackson,  1  Paine,  559,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  989; 
Cleveland  Ins.  Co.  v.  Reed,  1  Biss.  1S6,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2S89;  Griffin  v. 
McKenzie,  7  Ga.  166,  50  Am.  Dec.  391;  Blackford  v.  Peltier,  1  Blackf. 
36;  Lewis  v.  Harbin,  5  B.  Mon.  567;  Louisville  etc.  E.  R.  Co.  v. 
Williams,  41  S.  W.  287;  Mason  v.  Walker,  14  Me.  166;  State  v.  Jones, 
21  Md.  438;  Briscoe  v.  Anketell,  28  Miss.  371,  61  Am.  Dec.  555; 
Stephens  v.  Bank,  43  Mo.  389;  Smith  v.  Tuekor,  17  N.  J.  86; 
Morse  v.  Goold,  11  N.  Y.  288,  62  Am.  Dec.  107;  Strickland  v. 
Draughan,  91  N.  C.  104;  Pearce  v.  Patton,  7  B.  Mon.  162,  45  Am. 
Dec.  61;  Stearns  v.  Gittings,  23  111.  387;  Newland  v.  Marsh,  19  111. 
376;  McKenny  v.  Compton,  18-  Ga.  170;  George  v.  Gardner,  49  Ga. 
441;  Butler  v.  Palmer,  1  Hill,  324;  State  v.  Bermudez,  12  La.  352;  De 
Cordova  v.  Galveston,  4  Tex.  470;' Coffman  v.  Bank  of  Kentucky,  40 
Miss.  29,  90  Am.  Dec.  311;  Adamson  v.  Marshall,  47  Mo.  273;  Billings 
v.  Hall,  7  Cal.  1;  Henry  v.  Henry,  31  S.  C.  1,  9  S.  E.  726;  Eelyea 
v.  Tomahawk  Paper  etc.  Co.,  102  Wis.  301,  72  Am.  St.  Eep.  878,  7S 
N.  W.   412. 

202  McGahey  v.  Virginia,  135  U.  S.  705,  10  S.  Ct.  985,  34  L.  ed. 
304. 


407  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

and  this  reasonableness  is  to  be  determined  in  the  first  instance 
by  the  legislature,203  subject  to  final  determination  by  the 
courts  whether  the  legislature  has  committed  palpable  error.204 
If  a  statute  fails  to  fix  the  time  as  to  existing  cases  the  ques- 
tion is  for  the  courts  to  determine.205 

In  determining  whether  the  time  remaining  is  reasonable  all 
the  circumstances  must  be  taken  into  consideration,206  and  to 
invalidate  the  law  it  must  appear  that  its  unmistakable  purpose 
and  effect  is  to  cut  off  the  right  of  the  party  and  not  merely  to 
limit  the  time.207  The  fact  that  a  substantial  remedy  remains 
is  determinative  of  the  validity  of  the  law.208 

A"  limitation  of  one  year  in  which  to  present  tax  receivable 
coupons,  where  there  was  originally  no  limitation,  has  been 
held  unreasonable,209  and  a  similar  limitation  on  municipal 
bonds  for  negotiation  in  a  foreign  market  has  been  declared 
void;210  but  a  limitation  of  one  year  for  exhibiting  claims  for 
damages  assessed  in  condemnation  proceedings  has  been  up- 
held as  reasonable.211  A  limitation  of  six  months  after  the 
passage  of  an  act,  within  which  actions  to  redeem  lands  sold 
to  the  state  for  nonpayment  of  taxes  may  be  brought  is  not 
repugnant  to  the  obligation  clause,212  and  an  act  which  con- 
clusively presumes  the  release  and  extinguishment  of  an  irre- 
deemable ground  rent  on  which  no  payment  or  demand  has 

203  Terry  v.  Anderson,  95  U.  S.  633,  24  L.  ed.  365;  Wilson  V. 
Iseminger,  185  U.  S.  62,  22  S.  Ct.  573,  46  L.  ed.  804. 

204  Parmenter  v.  State,  135  N.  Y.  167,  31  N.  E.  1069;  Merchants' 
Nat.  Bank  v.  Braithwaite,  7  N.  Dak.  358,  66  Am.  St.  Eep.  653,  75 
N.  W.  244;  Pereles  v.  Watertown,  6  Biss.  79.  And  see  Smith  v. 
Morrison,  39  Mass.  430. 

205  Merchants'  Nat.  Bank  v.  Braithwaite,  7  N.  Dak.  358,  66  Am. 
St.  Eep.  653,  75  N.  W.  244. 

206  McGahey  v.  Virginia,  135  U.  S.  705,  10  S.  Ct.  905,  34  L.  ed. 
304;  Berry  v.  Bansdall,  4  Met.  (Ky.)  294;  Eakin  v.  Eaub,  12  Serg. 
&  E.  372.     But  see  Pope  v.  Ashley,  13  Ark.  268. 

207  Eexford  v.  Knight,  11  N.  Y.  308. 

208  Von  Baumbach  v.  Bade,  9  Wis.  559,  76  Am.  Dec.  283. 

209  McGahey  v.  Virginia,  135  U.  S  .705,  10  S.  Ct.  905,  34  L.  ed.  304. 

210  Pereles  v.  Watertown,  6  Biss.  79,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,980. 

211  Eexford  v.  Knight,  11  N.  Y.  308. 

212  Turner  v.  New  York,  168  U.  S.  94,  18  S.  Ct.  38,  42  L.  ed.  392. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  408 

been  marie  Tor  twenty-one  years,  and  which  has  not  been  ac- 
knowledged during  that  period,  does  not  impair  any  contract 
obligations  where  it  allows  three  years  for  the  enforcement  of 
existing  rights.213  An  act  providing  that  no  mortgage  or 
judgment  should  constitute  a  lien  on  land  twenty  years  after 
the  creation  of  the  same,  unless  the  holder  should  file  a  note 
of  payment  or  acknowledgment,  was  upheld  where  seven  years 
remained  between  the  passage  of  the  act  and  the  expiration 
of  the  limitation.214  Any  act  in  the  nature  of  a  statute  of 
limitation  is  valid  if  it  will  stand  the  test  stated.215  So  a 
statute  prescribing  the  time  within  which  to  exercise  authority 
to  establish  a  lottery  is  valid.216  And  a  statute  requiring  a 
new  promise  to  be  in  writing  is  valid,  if  ample  time  is  al- 
lowed to  enforce  the  demand.217 

An  extension  of  the  time  prescribed  for  bringing  an  action 
does  not  impair  any  contract  obligation,'218  and  a  party  may  be 
deprived  of  the  right  to  plead  a  statute  of  limitation  by  its 
repeal.219  But  these  statements  of  general  rules  are  subject 
to  qualification,  in  that  the  right  to  plead  the  statute  of  limi- 
tations after  it  has  become  a  bar  is  a  vested  right  which  can- 
not be  taken  away  by  the  legislature.220     So  a  statute  of  limi- 

213  Wilson  v.  Iseminger,  185  U.  S.  62,  22  S.  Ct.  573,  46  L.  ed.  S04; 
Biddle  v.  Hooven,  120  Pa.  St.  221,  13  Atl.  927. 

214  Henry  v.  Henry,  31  S.  .0.  1,  9  S.  E.  726.  For  other  instances 
where  the  time  remaining  was  held  reasonable,  see  Adamson  v.  Davis, 
47  Mo.  268;  Adamson  v.  Marshall,  47  Mo.  273;  Coffman  v.  Bank  of 
Kentucky,  40  Miss.  29,  90  Am.  Dee.  311;  Hill  v.  Boyland,  10  Miss. 
618;  Burt  v.  Williams,  24  Ark.  91;   Coxe  v.  Martin,  44  Pa.  St.  322, 

215  George  v.  Gardner,  49  Ga.  441;  Bertrand  v.  Taylor,  87  111.  235. 

216  Phalen  v.  Commonwealth,  8  How.  163,  12  L.  ed.  1030. 

217  Briscoe  v.  Anketell,  28  Miss.  361,  61  Am.  Dec.  553;  Joy  v. 
Thompson,  1  Doug.  383. 

218  Cox  v.  Berry,  13  Ga.  306;  Winston  v.  McCormick,  1  Ind.  56; 
Edwards  v.  McCaddon,  20  Iowa,  520;  Swiekard  v.  Bailey,  3  Kan. 
507;  Gilman  v.  Cutts,  23  N.  H.  376;  Smith  v.  Tucker,  17  N.  J.  82; 
Wardlaw  v.  Buzzard,  15  Bich.  158,  94  Am.  Dec.  148;  Pleasants  v. 
Roher,  17  Wis.  577. 

219  Bradford  v.  Shine,  13  Fla.  393,  7  Am.  Eep.  239;  Swiekard  v. 
Bailey,  3  Kan.  507;  Edwards  v.  McCaddon,  20  Iowa,  '520;  Sturm  v. 
Fleming,  31  W.  Va.  701,  8  S.  E.  263. 

220  Lawrence  v.  Louisville,  96  Ky.  595,  49  Am.  St.  Eep.  309,  29 
S.  W.  450,  27  L.  B.   A.  560;  Mellinger  v.  City  of  Houston,  68   Tex. 


409  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

tations  repealing  a  prior  act  is  void  as  to  actions  pending  at 
the  time  of  the  repeal.221  The  power  of  the  legislature  to 
enact  or  change  statutes  of  limitation  is  plenary,  subject  only 
to  the  restriction  that  such  legislation  shall  not  impair  con- 
tract obligations  while  professing  to  operate  only  upon  reme- 
dies.222 A  statute  changing  the  condition  of  a  right  of  action 
for  damages  given  by  statute  is  a  condition  precedent  to  the 
right  to  such  damages,  hence  acts  direct.lv  on  the  right,  and  is 
not  a  statute  of  limitation  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  that  term.223 
It  has  been  held  that  statutes  changing  periods  of  limitation 
do  not  retroact  unless  the  letter  of  the  statutes  or  their  neces- 
sary and  inevitable  intent  so  requires.224 

Exemption  Laws. 


It  may  be  stated  as  a  general  rule  that  laws  creating  or  ex- 
tending exemptions  from  attachment  or  execution  impair  the 
obligation  of  contracts,  so  far  as  they  relate  to  debts  previously 
contracted,  in  that  they  operate  to  destroy  the  remedy,225  al- 

36,  3  S.  W.  249;  Eingartner  v.  St.  Louis  Steel  Co.,  103  Wis.  373,  71 
Am.  St.  Eep.  871,  79  N.  W.  433.     But  see  Cox  v.  Berry,  13  Ga.  306. 

221  Sturges  v.  Crowninshield,  4  Wheat.  207,  4  L.  ed.  529;  Mc- 
Ehrroyle  v.  Cohen,  13  Pet.  312,  10  L.  ed.  177;  Society  v.  Wheeler,  2 
Gall.  141,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,156;  Bank  of  Alabama  v.  Dalton,  9  How. 
522,  13  L.  ed.  242;  Kennebec  Land  Co.  v.  Laboree,  2  Me.  293;  Kings- 
ly  v.  Cousins,  47  Me.  91;  Call  v.  Hagger,  8  Mass.  429;  Beal  v.  Nasou, 
14  Me.  344;  Woart  v.  Winnick,  3  N.  H.  473,  14  Am.  Dec.  384;  Swick- 
ard  v.  Bailey,  3  Kan.  507;  Mellinger  v.  City  of  Houston,  68  Tex.  3\5, 
3  S.  W.  249." 

22  2  Swickard  v.  Bailey,  3  Kan.  507. 

223  Eelyea  v.  Tomahawk  Paper  etc.  Co.,  102  Wis.  301,  72  Am.  St. 
Eep.  878,  78  N.  W.  412. 

224  Walker  v.  Burgess,  44  W.  Va.  399,  67  Am.  St.  Eep.  775,  30  S. 
E.   99. 

225  Gunn  v.  Barry,  15  Wall.  624,  21  L.  ed.  212;  Edwards  v.  Kear- 
zey,  96  U.  S.  604,  24  L.  ed.  793;  In  re  Shipman,  2  Hughes,  228,  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  12,791;  Townsend  Bank  v.  Epping,  3  Woods,  393,  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  14,120;  Kelly  v.  Garrett,  67  Ala.  309;  Horn  v.  Wiatt,  60  Ala.  300; 
Wilson  v.  Brown,  58  Ala.  65,  29  Am.  Eep.  728;  Fearn  v.  Ward,  65 
Ala.  39;  Cohn  v.  Hoffman,  45  Ark.  385;  Wofford  v.  Gaines,  53  Ga. 
487;  Tuolumne  Eedemption  Co.  v.  Sedgwick,  15  Cal.  516;  Forsyth  v. 
Marbury,  E.  M.  Charlt.  324;  Mitchell  v.  Wolfe,  70  Ga.  627;  New  Or- 
leans Canal  &  Banking  Co.  v.  New  Orleans,  30  La.  Ann.  1371;  Dor- 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  410 

though  a  few  cases  have  held  that  laws  exempting  property 
from  execution  or  attachment  operate  only  upon  the  remedy 
given  for  the  enforcement  of  contracts,  and  hence  may  exempt 
property  which  was  subject  to  execution  or  attachment  when 
a  contract  was  made.226 

A  distinction  has  been  drawn  between  exemptions  of  real 
property  and  exemptions  of  personal  property,  and  while  the 
original  expressions  of  this  distinction  were  but  dicta,227  it 
seems  now  to  be  established  that  reasonable  exemptions  of  per- 
sonal property  are  valid  as  to  prior  debts,  the  reasonableness  of 
the  exemption  to  be  determined  by  the  court  in  each  case.228 
In  any  case  where  the  exemption  is  palpably  too  large  and  ma- 
terially affects  remedies,  it  will  be  declared  void.229 

A  statute  absolutely  exempting  the  earnings  of  married  men 
and  heads  of  families  for  personal  services  rendered  within 
sixty  days  next  preceding  the  levy  of  execution  is  directed  to 
the  remedy  and  does  not  impair  previous  contracts;230  but  a 
statute  exempting  proceeds  of  life  insurance  policies  from  exe- 
cution is  unconstitutional  in  so  far  as  it  applies  to  antecedent 
debts.231     An  act  withdrawing  the  property  of  a  debtor  from 

rington  v.  Myers,  11  Net>.  388,  9  N.  W.  555;  Berry  v.  Ewing,  91  Mo. 
398,  3  S.  W.  878;  Danks  v.  Quackenbush,  1  N.  Y.  129;  Hannum  v. 
Mclnturf,  6  Baxt.  225. 

226  Sneider  v.  Heidelburger,  45  Ala.  126;  Hardeman  v.  Downer,  39 
Ga.  427,  428;  Eockwell  v.  Hubbell,  2  Doug.  (Mich.)  203,  45  Am.  Dee. 
450;  Lessley  v.  Phipps,  49  Miss.  799;  In  re  Kennedy,  2  S.  C.  221; 
Stephenson  v.  Osborn,  41  Miss.  129,  90  Am.  Dee.  364. 

227  Bronson  v.  Kinzie,  1  How.  315,  11  L.  ed.  143;  Bigelow  v.  Pritch- 
ard,  21  Pick.  169. 

228  In  re  Owens,  6  Biss.  434,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,632;  Rockwell  v. 
Hubbell,  2  Doug.  199,  45  Am.  Dec.  247;  Stephenson  v.  Osborn,  41 
Miss.  128,  90  Am.  Dec.  364;  Morse  v.  Goold,  11  N.  Y.  291,  62  Am. 
Dec.  110;  Mineral  Point  R.  E.  v.  Barron,  83  111.  367;  Grimes  v. 
v.  Byrne,  2  Minn.  89;  Evans  v.  Montgomery,  4  "Watts  &  S.  218. 

229  Edwards  v.  Kerzey,  96  IT.  S.  611,  24  L.  ed.  793;  Grimes  v.  Byrne, 
2  Minn.  89;  Stephenson  v.  Osborn,  41  Miss.  119,  90  Am.  Dec.  358; 
Morse  v.  Goold,  11  N.  Y.  291,  62  Am.  Dec.  110;  Lessley  v.  Phipps. 
49  Miss.  790. 

230  Kirkman  v.  Bird,  22  Utah,  100,  S3  Am.  St.  Rep.  774,  61  Pac. 
338,  58  L.  R.  A.  669. 

231  Rice  v.  Smith.  72  Miss.  42,  16  South.  417;  Skinner  v.  Holt,  9 


411  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

all  legal  process,  leaving  only  the  right  to  sue,  so  affects  the 
remedy  as  to  impair  the  obligation;232  likewise  as  to  an  act 
providing  that  all  the  property  of  a  corporation  shall  be  ex- 
empt from  execution  save  in  certain  cases.233  The  criterion 
of  reasonableness  has  been  rejected  in  some  cases,  and  it  has 
been  declared  that  no  distinction  can  properly  be  taken 
whether  the  amount  exempted  be  little  or  much.234 

The  limitation  of  the  prohibition  to  exemptions  of  real  prop- 
erty has  been  denied  in  a  few  cases  which  declare  it  to  be- 
within  the  power  of  the  legislature  to  exempt  real  as  well  as 
personal  property,235  unless  the  effect  of  the  law  is  to  enable 
the  holding  of  large  properties  rather  than  to  secure  the  well- 
being  of  citizens,  in  which  case  it  is  void.230  It  is  immaterial 
that  the  new  exemption  is  created  by  the  state  constitution; 
if  it  impairs  the  obligation  of  prior  contracts  it  is  void.237  An 
exemption  law  cannot  properly  devest  the  lien  of  a  judgment 
and  leave  no  means  for  the  collection  of  the  debt;23S  but  this 
has  been  denied  in  cases  where  the  judgment  was  based  on  an 
action  for  a  tort.239  An  exemption  law  which  merely  provides 
a  substitute  for  a  prior  law  which  permitted  a  debtor  to  select 
specified  articles  up  to  the  value  prescribed  in  the  new  law,  is 
valid.240     The  subjection  to  execution  of  property  which  was 

S.  Dak.  427,  62  Am.  St.  Rep.  878,  62  N.  W.  878;  In  re  Heilbron,  14 
Wash.  536,  45  Pae.  153,  35  L.  R,  A.  602. 

232  State  v.  Bank  of  South  Carolina,  1  Rich.  63. 

233  Penrose  v.  Erie  Canal  Co.,  56  Pa.  St.  46,  93  Am.  Dec.  778. 

234  Johnson  v.  Fletcher,  54  Miss.  €28,  28  Am.  Rep.  388;  Rice  v. 
Smith,  72  Miss.  42,  16  South.  417;  Quackenbush  v.  Danks,  1  Denio, 
128.  See,  also,  Appeal  of  Neff,  21  Pa.  St.  243;  Homestead  Cases,  ?2 
Gratt.  266,  12  Am.  Rep.  507. 

235  Hill  v.  Kessler,  63  N.  C.  436;  Jacobs  v.  Smallwood,  63  N.  C.  112. 

236  Cusie  v.  Douglas,  3  Kan.  23,  87  Am.  Dec.  458. 

237  Gunn  v.  Barry,  15  Wall.  610,  21  L.  ed.  212;  Jones  v.  Brandon, 
48  Ga.  593;  Homestead  Cases,  22  Gratt.  266,  12  Am.  Rep.  507. 

238  Gunn  v.  Barry,  15  Wall.  610;  Smith  v.  Morse,  2  Cal.  524;  Til- 
lotson  v.  Millard,  7  Minn.  513,  82  Am.  Dec.  112;  McKeithan  v.  Terry, 
64  X.  C.  25;  Forsyth  v.  Marbury,  R.  M.  Charlt.  324. 

239  McAfee  v.  Covington,  71  Ga.  273,  51  Am.  Rep.  264;  Peerce 
v.  Kitzmiller,  19  W.  Va.  576. 

240  Earle  v.  Hardie,  80  N.  C.  177;  State  v.  Ryhue,  80  N.  C.  183. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  412 

exempt  when  a  contract  was  made  does  not  impair  the  obliga- 
tion of  the  contract.241 

Homestead  exemption  laws  are  upon  the  same  footing  as 
other  statutes  of  this  character,  and  a  constitutional  or  stat- 
utory provision  creating  or  enlarging  such  exemptions  is  void 
as  to  prior  contracts.242  While  this  is  undoubtedly  the  correct 
rule,  a  number  of  cases  going  upon  the  principle  that  the 
right  of  a  man's  family  to  a  homestead  is  paramount  and 
fundamental,  and  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  state  to  secure 
and  protect  it  against  creditors,  have  upheld  laws  exempting 
them  as  against  prior  debts,243  and  this,  notwithstanding  the 
exemption  left  no  property  available  to  creditors.244  Such 
a  law,  however,  is  clearly  valid  as  to  debts  created  after  its 
passage  but  prior  to  a  declaration  of  homestead.245  A  mort- 
gage cannot  be  defeated  by  a  homestead  exemption  law  passed 
after  its  execution.246  The  repeal  of  an  act  providing  that 
the  homestead  of  a  debtor  becomes  assets  of  his  estate  at  his 
death,  for  the  payment  of  his  debts,  is  also  void  as  to  prior 
debts.247 

An  act  which  takes  from  a  purchaser  at  an  execution  sale 
the  right  to  rents  and  profits  during  the  period  allowed  for  re- 

241  Eeardon  v.  Searcy,  2>  Bibb,  202. 

242  Gunn  v.  Barry,  15  Wall.  610,  21  L.  ed.  212;  Edwards  v.  Kearzey, 
96  U.  S.  595,  24  L.  ed.  793;  Wilson  v.  Brown,  58  Ala.  62,  29  Am. 
Bep.  727;  Nelson  v.  McCrary,  60  Ala.  310:  Cohn  v.  Hoffman,  45  Ark. 
385;  Lessley  v.  Bhipps,  49  Miss.  800;  Quackenbush  v.  Danks,  1  Demo, 
132;  Hannum  v.  MeTnturf,  6  Baxt.  230;  Douglas  v.  Craig,  13  S.  C. 
371;  Homestead  Cases,  22  Gratt.  290,  12  Am.  Rep.  517;  MeLane  v. 
Pasehal,  62  Tex.  102.  See,  also,  Deering  v.  Boyle,  8  Kan.  532,  12  Am. 
Bep.  487. 

243  Kimball  v.  Greig,  47  Ala.  235;  Maxey  v.  Loyal,  38  Ga.  538; 
Hardeman  v.  Downer,  39  Ga.  431;  Helfenstein  v.  Cave,  3  Iowa,  289; 
Grimes  v.  Bryne,  2  Minn.  95;  Hill  v.  Kessler,  63  N.  C.  440;  Garrett 
v.  Cheshire,  69  N.  C.  403,  12  Am.  Eep.  653;  In  re  Kennedy,  2  S.  C. 
223;  Boot  v.  McGrew,  3  Kan.  215;  Cusic  v.  Douglas,  3  Kan.  23,  87 
Am.  Dec.  462. 

244  Hill  v.  Kessler,  63  N.  C.  436. 

245  In  re  Henkel,  2  Saw.  305,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6362. 

246  Shelor  v.  Mason,  2  Eich.,  N.  S.,  233;  Cole  v.  La  Chambre,  31 
La.  Ann.  41. 

247  Duun  v.  Stevens,  62  Minn.  380,  64  N.  W.  924. 


413  Obligation  of  Contbacts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

demption  is  void  so  far  as  it  purports  to  retroact,248  and  this 
is  true  of  a  statute  providing  that  the  grantor  under  a  trust 
deed  shall  not  be  liable  for  rents  and  profits  during  the  redemp- 
tion period.249  But  a  law  making  the  occupant  of  land,  other 
than  the  mortgagor,  liable  for  rent  during  that  period,  where 
he  was  not  liable  before,  impairs  no  contract  right.230 

Stay  Laws  as  Affecting  Remedies. 


The  so-called  "stay  laws,"  which  had  for  their  object  the 
postponing,  in  certain  cases,  of  the  rendition  of  judgments  or 
of  the  issuance  of  execution  on  judgments  already  rendered, 
have  generally  been  denied  a  retrospective  operation  on  the 
ground  that  they  impaired  contract  rights.251  Clearly,  such 
laws,  so  far  as  they  abridge  the  remedy,  impair  the  obligation 
of  contracts,252  and  are  in  conflict  with  the  obligation  clause 

248  Travelers'  Ins.  Co.  v.  Brouse,  83  Ind.  62. 

249  Greenfield  v.  Dorris,  1  Sneed,  548. 

250  Edwards  v.  Johnson,  105  Ind.  594,  5  N.  E.  716.  And  see  Davis 
v.  Eeipe,  114  Ind.  588,  17  N.  E.  163. 

251  Aycock  v.  Martin,  37  Ga.  135,  92  Am.  Dec.  64;  Coffman  v. 
Bank  of  Kentucky,  40  Miss.  33,  90  Am.  Dec.  314;  Stevens  v.  Andrews, 
31  Mo.  208;  Dorrington  v.  Myers,  11  Neb.  388,  9  N.  W.  555;  Billmeyer 
v.  Evans,  40  Pa.  St.  327;  Goggans  v.  Turnipseed,  1  S.  C.  82,  98  Am. 
Dec.  398;  State  v.  Carew,  13  Kich.  511,  91  Am.  Dec.  250;  Berry  -i. 
Iseman,  14  Kich.  138,  91  Am.  Dec.  266. 

252  Bronson  v.  Kinzie,  1  How.  311,  11  L.  ed.  143;  McCracken  v. 
Hayward,  2  How.  608,  11  L.  ed.  397;  Gantly  v.  Ewing,  3  How.  707, 
11  L.  ed.  794;  Howard  v.  Bugbee,  24  How.  461,  16  L.  ed.  753;  Scobey 
v.  Gibson,  71  Md.  572,  79  Am.  Dec.  490;  Burt  v.  Williams,  24  Ark. 
91;  Domire  v.  Cogly,  8  Blackf.  177;  Hudspeth  v.  Davis,  41  Ala.  389; 
Jones  v.  Crittenden,  1  Car.  Law  Eep.  385,  6  Am.  Dee.  531;  Garling- 
ton  v.  Priest,  13  Fla.  559;  Aycock  v.  Martin,  37  Ga.  124,  92  Am. 
Dec.  56;  Webster  v.  Eose,  6  Heisk.  93,  19  Am.  Eep.  583;  Strong  v. 
Daniel,  5  Ind.  348;  Barnes  v.  Barnes,  8  Jones  (N.  C),  366;  Cargill 
v.  Power,  1  Mich.  369;  Baumgardner  v.  Circuit  Court,  4  Mo.  50; 
Grayson  v.  Lilly,  7  Mon.  6;  Jacobs  v.  Smallwood,  63  N.  C.  112; 
Stevens  v.  Andrews,  31  Mo.  205;  Townsend  v.  Townsend,  Peck 
(Tenn.),  1,  14  Am.  Dec.  722;  State  v.  Carew,  13  Eieh.  498,  91  Am. 
Dec.  245;  Sequestration  Cases,  30  Tex.  688,  98  Am.  Dec.  494;  Canfield 
v.  Hunter,  30  Tex.  712;  Levison  v.  Krohne,  30  Tex.  714;  Bunn  v. 
Gorgas,  5  Wright,  441;  Billmeyer  v.  Evans,  4  Wright,  324;  People  v. 
Hays,  4  Cal.  127;  Terrill  v.  Eankin,  2  Bush  (Ky.),  453,  92  Am.  Dec. 
500;  Frey  v.  Habenstreit,  1  Eob.  561;  Hill  v.  Boyland,  40  Miss.  618. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  414 

of  the  constitution.253  It  has  been  held,  however,  that  if  they 
affect  the  remedy  only  and  not  the  right,  such  laws  are  valid,254 
and  it  is  upon  the  theory  that  the  same  remedy  existed  as  be- 
fore the  passage  of  the  stay  law,  its  enforcement  being  merely 
postponed,  that  such  laws  have  been  upheld.255  Other  cases 
hold  that  a  law  procrastinating  the  remedy  destroys  part  of  the 
right,256  and  the  right  to  suspend  the  recovery  of  a  debt  for 
one  period  implies  the  right  of  suspending  it  for  another.257 
Where  a  contract  provides  for  a  remedy  which  may  be  en- 
forced without  the  assistance  of  any  legal  process,  if  such  rem- 
edy was  legal  when  the  contract  was  made  it  cannot  be  sus- 
pended;258 e.  g.,  postponing  sales  provided  for  in  deeds  of 
trust  upon  default  in  payment.259  So  a  statute  which  subjects 
parties  to  a  longer  credit  than  was  allowed  by  law  when  the 
contract  was  made  is  unconstitutional,260  and  a  law  which  pro- 
vides that  certain  debts  which  did  not  previously  bear  interest 
should  do  so  while  the  act  remains  in  force  impairs  the  right 
itself  and  is  void.261  Nor  can  the  legislature  provide  for  a 
stay  as  to  contracts  which  expressly  stipulate  that  no  stay  shall 
be  allowed.262     A  provision  for  a  stay  unless  the  plaintiff  will 

253  Edwards  v.  Kearzey,  96  U.  S.  601,  24  L.  ed.  793;  Barnes  v. 
Barnes,  8  Jones  (N.  C),  366;  Jones  v.  Crittenden,  1  Car.  Law  Ret.. 
385,  6  Am.  Dec.  531;  Jacobs  v.  Smallwood,  63  N.  C.  112;  Wood  v. 
City  of  New  York,  34  How.  Pr.  501;  Johnson  v.  Winslow,  64  N.  C. 
27. 

254  Coriell  v.  Ham,  4  G.  Greene  (Iowa),  455,  61  Am.  Dec.  134; 
Grosvenor  v.  Chesley,  48  Me.  369;  Swift  v.  Fletcher,  6  Minn.  550. 

255  Ex  parte  Pollard,  40  Ala.  88;  Farnsworth  v.  Vance,  2  Cold. 
118;  Beeson  v.  Beeson,  1  Harr.  470;  "Wardlaw  v.  Buzzard,  15  Rich. 
160,  94  Am.  Dec.   149. 

256  Johnson  v.  Duncan,  3  Mart.  531,  6  Am.  Dec.  75;  Wood  v.  Wood, 
14  Rich.  148;  Luter  v.  Hunter,  30  Tex.  688,  98  Am.  Dec.  494. 

257  Jones  v.  Crittenden,  1  Car.  Law  Rep.  385.  6  Am.  Dec.  531. 

258  White  v.  Crawford,  84  Pa.  St.  433;  Hunt  v.  Thomas,  3  Phila. 
121. 

259  Taylor  v.  Stearns,  18  Gratt.  244. 

260  January  v.  January,  7  T.  B.  Mon.  542,  18  Am.  Dec.  211;  Pool  v. 
Young,  7  Mon.  587. 

261  Goggans  v.  Turnipseed,  1  Rich.  80,  98  Am.  Dec.  397. 

262  Griffith  v.  Thomas,  34  Leg.  Lit.  150;  Billmeyer  v.  Evans,  40 
Pa.  St.  324;  Lewis  v.  Lewis,  47  Pa.  St.  127. 


415  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

take  property  levied  on  at  two-thirds  its  appraised  value  is  un- 
constitutional,263 but  a  statute  providing  for  a  reasonable  stay 
unless  the  property  levied  on  shall  bring  two-thirds  of  its  ap- 
praised value  is  unobjectionable  as  to  its  retrospective  opera- 
tion.264 On  the  other  hand,  a  statute  adding  the  condition 
that  no  sale  under  execution  shall  be  made  for  any  sum  less 
than  two-thirds  of  the  appraised  value  of  the  property  levied 
on  violates  contract  obligations  and  is  void.265  A  stay  law 
cannot  operate  as  to  a  judgment  rendered  prior  to  its  passage,266 
nor  can  it  apply  to  a  mortgage  executed  prior  to  its  passage,267 
although  it  has  been  held  that  a  state  may  grant  a  stay  of  ex- 
ecution upon  a  judgment  due  to  a  municipal  corporation.268 

Eeasonableness  has  been  made  the  criterion  of  validity  in  a 
number  of  cases,  and  laws  whicb  merely  suspended  tempor- 
arily proceedings  for  the  collection  of  debts  have  been  up- 
held.269 So,  where  a  stay  is  not  so  unreasonable  as  to  impair 
the  right  it  is  valid.270  And  this  test  has  been  applied  in  up- 
holding statutes  suspending  actions  against  persons  shown  to 

263  Gantly  v.  Ewing,  3  How.  717,  11  L.  ed.  794;  Bailey  v.  Gentry, 
1  Mo.  164. 

264  Thompson  v.  Buckley,  34  Leg.  Int.  148;  Chadwick  v.  Moore,  3 
Watts   &  S.  49. 

265  McCracken  v.  Hayward,  2  How.  603,  11  L.  ed.  397;  Gantley 
v.  Ewing,  3  How.  707,  11  L.  ed.  794;  Hunt  v.  Gregg,  8  Blackf.  105; 
Robards  v.  Brown,  40  Ark.  426;  Smoot  v.  Lafferty,  2  Gilm.  383;  Bosier 
v.  Hales,  10  Iowa,  470,  77  Am.  Dec.  129;  Eawley  v.  Hooker,  21  Ind. 
144;  Bailey  v.  Gentry,  1  Mo.  164;  Bhinney  v.  Bhinney,  81  Me.  463, 
10  Am.  St.  Eep.  271,  17  Atl.  408,  4  L.  R.  A.  348;  Swinburne  v.  Mills, 
17  Wash.  622,  61  Am.  St.  Rep.  939,  50  Bac.  492.  But  see  Waldo  ?. 
Williams,  4  111.  764;  Catlin  v.  MuDger,  1  Tex.  598. 

266  Domire  v.  Cogly,  8  Blackf.  177. 

267  Harrison  v.  Styres,  74  N.  C.  290. 

268  Governor  v.  Gridley,  Walk.  328. 

269  United  States  v.  Conway,  Hemp.  313,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,S49; 
Grimball  v.  Ross,  Charlt.  175;  Barkley  v.  Glover,  4  Met.  (Ky.)  44; 
Johnson  v.  Duncan,  3  Mart.  530,  6  Am.  Dec.  675;  Chadwick  v.  Moore, 
8  Watts  &  S.  49,  42  Am.  Dec.  267;  Wolf  kill  v.  Mason,  16  Abb.  Br. 
221;  State  v.  McGinty,  41  Miss.  435,  93  Am.  Dec.  269;  Breitenbach 
v.  Bush,  44  Ba.  St.  313,  84  Am.  Dec.  442;  Coxe  v.  Martin,  44  Fa.  St. 
313. 

270  Huntzinger  v.  Brock,  3  Grant,  243. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  416 

be  in  the  actual  military  service  of  the  United  States.271  But 
in  addition  to  being  reasonable  the  stay  prescribed  must  be  for 
a  definite  period,272  as  that  actions  to  enforce  judgments  shall 
be  suspended  for  seven  months.273  A  statute  staying  all  suits 
"until  after  the  ratification  of  peace  between  the  United  States 
and  the  Confederate  states''  is  open  to  the  objection  that  it  is 
indefinite.274  So,  also,  as  to  an  act  where  the  period  was 
specified  as  "during  the  war."275  A  statute  allowing  a  stay 
for  any  indefinite  time,275*  as  upon  the  consent  of  two-thirds 
of  the  creditors,  is  void.276  So,  also,  a  statute  allowing  a  stay 
of  execution  so  long  as  installments  are  paid  is  unconstitu- 
tional;277 but  a  statute  may  provide  for  a  stay  of  execution 
on  a  judgment  obtained  by  confession  until  the  demand  is 
due,278  or  until  an  appraisement  is  made.279  A  statute  grant- 
ing a  stay  for  a  certain  period  upon  a  judgment  superseded 
with  sureties  impairs  the  obligation  of  contracts  made  before 
its  passage,  and  is  void,280  and  when  the  liability  of  bail  is 
fixed  the  legislature  cannot  deprive  the  plaintiff  of  his  right 
to  a  judgment.281 

271  McCormiek  v.  Euseh,  15  Iowa,  127;  Edmondson  v.  Ferguson, 
11  Mo.  344;  Lindsey  v.  Burbridge,  11  Mo.  545;  Burns  v.  Crawford, 
34  Mo.  330.  But  see  Clark  v.  Martin,  49  Pa.  St.  299;  Hasbrouck  v. 
Shipman,  16  Wis.  296. 

272  State  v.  MeGinty,  41  Miss.  435,  93  Am.  Dee.  269;  Breitenbacn 
v.  Bush,  44  Pa.  St.  313,  84  Am.  Dee.  442;  Coxe  v.  Martin,  44  Pa.  St. 
322. 

273  Johnson  v.  Higgins,  3  Met.  (Ky.)  566;  Barkley  v.  Glover, 
4  Met.  (Ky.)    44. 

274  Luter  v.  Hunter,  30  Tex.  688,  98  Am.  Dec.  494;  Burt  v.  Williams, 
24  Ark.  91. 

275  Clark  v.  Martin,  3  Grant,  393,  49  Pa.  St.  299. 
275a  Hudspeth  v.  Davis,  41  Ala.  389. 

276  Bunn  v.  Gorgas,  41  Pa.  St.  441. 

277  Jones  v.  McMahan,  30  Tex.  319;  Earle  v.  Johnson,  31  Tex.  164. 

278  'Wood  v.  Child,  20  111.  209;  Barnes  v.  Barnes,  8  Jones  (N.  C), 
R66. 

279  Catlin   v.  Munger,  1   Tex.  598. 

280  Blair  v.  Williams,  4  Litt.  34;  Lapsley  v.  Brashears,  4  Litt.  47. 
But  see  Farnsworth  v.  Vance,  2  Cold.  108. 

2Si   Lewij  v.  Brackenridge,  1  Blackf.  220,  12  Am.  Dec.  228. 


417  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

A  statute  providing  that  the  obligation  on  official  bonds  shall 
not  have  the  benefit  of  stay  laws  or  appraisement  laws  is 
valid.2*2  Acts  providing  for  the  postponement  of  trials  in 
certain  cases  relate  to  the  remedy  and  are  valid,283  and  acts 
extending  the  time  in  which  to  answer  in  foreclosure  suits  have 
been  upheld.284 

State  Insolvency  Laws. 

The  power  of  the  states  to  enact  insolvent  laws  is  subject  to 
tbe  prohibition  against  laws  impairing  the  obligation  of  con- 
tracts; such  a  law  purporting  to  discharge  liability  on  contracts 
entered  into  before  its  passage  impairs  the  obligation  of  those 
contracts  and  is  void.285  In  their  operation  upon  residents  of 
the  state  this  is  the  only  restriction  upon  the  power  to  enact 
them,  and  while  they  cannot  retroact  upon  previously  con- 
tracted debts,  such  laws  providing  for  discharge  from  subse- 
quently contracted  debts  are  valid.286     A  state  insolvency  law 

282  Pierce  v.   Miell,  21  Ind.  27. 

253  Ex  parte  Pollard,  40  Ala.  477;  Dours  v.  Cazentre,  1  McGIoiu, 
251. 

254  Holloway  v.  Sherman,  12  Iowa,  282;  Von  Baumbach  v.  Bade, 
9  Wis.  559,  76  Am.  Dec.  283;  Starkweather  v.  Hawes,  10  Wis.  125. 

285  Sturges  v.  Crowninshield,  4  Wheat.  196,  197,  4  L.  ed.  529;  Farm- 
ers' etc.  Bank  v.  Smith,  6  Wheat.  134,  5  L.  ed.  224;  Bank  of  United 
States  v.  Frederickson,  2  Fed.  Gas.  745;  Golden  v.  Prince,  3  Wash. 
C.  C.  313,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5509;  Smith  v.  Mead,  3  Conn.  256,  8  Am. 
Dee.  1S4;  Boardman  v.  De  Forest,  5  Conn.  12;  Schwartz  v.  Drink- 
water,  70  Me.  410;  Kimberly  v.  Ely,  6  Pick.  440;  Vanuxem  v.  Hazel- 
hursts,  4  N.  J.  L.  172,  7  Am.  Dec.  5S2;  Olden  v.  Hart,  5  N.  J.  L. 
466;  Koosevelt  v.  Cebra,  17  Johns.  108;  Hicks  v.  Hotchkiss,  7  Johns. 
Ch.  297,  11  Am.  Dec.  472;  Salters  v.  Tobias,  3  Paige  Ch.  244;  Elton 
v  O'Connor,  6  N.  Dak.  6,  68  N.  W.  85,  33  L.  B.  A.  524;  Post  v.  Riley, 
18  Johns.  54;  In  re  Wendell,  19  Johns.  153. 

286  Ogden  v.  Saunders,  12  Wheat.  264,  275,  276,  307,  314,  369,  6 
L.  ed.  606;  In  re  Reiman,  7  Ben.  466,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,673;  Mather 
v.  Nesbit,  4  McCrary,  506,  13  Fed.  873;  State  v.  Curran,  12  Ark. 
352;  Rhodes  v.  Borden,  67  Cal.  8,  6  Pac.  850;  Hempstead  v.  Reed, 
G  Conn.  490,  491;  Orr  v.  Lisso,  33  La.  Ann.  477;  Felch  v.  Bugbee,  48 
Me.  11,  77  Am.  Dec.  204;  Marsh  v.  Putnam,  3  Gray,  555;  Gorely  v. 
Butler,  147  Mass.  12,  16  N.  E.  737;  Blanchard  v.  Russell,  13  Mass. 
1,  7  Am.  Dec.  106;  Wendell  v.  Lebon,  30  Minn.  238,  15  N.  W.  Ill; 
Stevens  v.  Brown,  49  Miss.  599;   Sebring  v.  Messereau,  9  Cow.  346; 

Notes  on  Constitution — 27 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  418 

cannot,  however,  even  as  to  subsequent  contracts,  operate  ex- 
traterritorially.-87  This  rule  is  subject  to  the  modification 
that  if  a  foreign  creditor  has  submitted  himself  or  his  claim 
to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  courts  of  the  state  where  the  dis- 
charge was  granted  he  is  barred.-ss  As  to  claims  existing 
prior  to  the  passage  of  the  act,  of  course,  a  submission  to  juris- 
diction does  not  make  the  law  operative.289 

It  is  the  residence  of  the  creditor,  and  not  the  place  where 
the  contract  was  made  or  to  be  performed,  that  determines  the 
operation  of  state  insolvency  laws,  and  a  discharge  cannot  bar 
action  on  a  claim  payable  in  the  state  but  to  a  person  resident 
in  another  state;290  a  fortiori  where  a  claim  is  payable  out  of 

Elton  v.  O'Connor,  6  N.  Dak.  5,  68  N.  W.  85,  33  L.  E.  A.  524;  In 
re  Keynolds,  8  E.  I.  189,  5  Am.  Eep.  617;  Merrill  v.  Bowler,  38  Atl. 
116. 

287  Sturges  v.  Crowninshield,  4  Wheat.  207,  4  L.  ed.  529;  Ogden 
v.  Saunders,  12  Wheat.  255,6  L.  ed.  606;  Suydam  v.  Broadnax,  14  Pet. 
75,  10  L.  ed.  357;  Boyle  v.  Zaeharie,  6  Pet.  635,  8  L.  ed.  527;  Cook 
v.  Moffatt,  5  How.  295,  12  L.  ed.  159;  Baldwin  v.  Hale,  1  Wall.  223, 
17  L.  ed.  531,  affirming  1  Cliff.  514,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5913;  Stevenson  v. 
King,  2  Cliff.  2,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,417;  Van  Eeimsdyk  v.  Kane,  1  Gall. 
630,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,872;  Hinkley  v.  Mareau,  3  Mason,  88,  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  6523;  Ehodes  v.  Borden,  67  Cal.  8,  6  Pac.  850;  Hawley  v.  Hunt, 
27  Iowa,  308,  1  Am.  Eep.  275;  Pugh  v.  Bussell,  2  Blackf.  266;  Norton 
V.  Cook,  9  Conn.  314,  23  Am.  Dec.  342;  Larxabee  v.  Talbott,  5  Gill, 
439,  46  Am.  Dec.  643;  Herring  v.  Selding,  2  Aik.  17;  Hicks  v.  Ho-tca- 
kiss,  7  Johns.  Ch.  301,  11  Am.  Dec.  472;  Witt  v.  Follett,  2  Wend.  458; 
Bradford  v.  Farrand,  13  Mass.  18;  Donnelly  v.  Corbett,  7  N.  Y.  500. 

288  Denny  v.  Bennett,  128  TJ.  S.  497,  9  S.  Ct.  137,  32  L.  ed.  491; 
Towne  v.  Smith,  1  Wood.  &  M.  127,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,115;  Newton 
v.  Hagerman,  10  Saw.  462,  22  Fed.  526;  Von  Glahn  v.  Varrenne,  I 
Dill.  517;  Eosenheim  v.  Morrow,  37  Fla.  488;  20  South.  245;  Brown 
v.  Smart,  69  Md.  327,  14  Atl.  470. 

289  Easterly  v.  Goodwin,  35  Conn.  279,  95  Am.  Dec.  237. 

200  Baldwin  v.  Hale,  1  Wall.  233,  17  L.  ed.  531;  Gilman  v.  Lock- 
wood,  4  Wall.  411,  18  L.  ed.  432;  Ehodes  v.  Borden,  67  Cal.  9,  6  Pac. 
851;  Pullen  v.  Hilliman,  84  Me.  131,  30  Am.  St.  Eep.  341,  24  Atl.  795; 
Kelly  v.  Drury,  9  Allen,  28;  Stoddard  v.  Harrington,  100  Mass.  88, 
97  Am.  Dec.  81;  Phoenix  National  Bank  v.  Batcheller,  151  Mass. 
590,  24  N.  E.  917,  8  L.  E.  A.  644;  Perley  v.  Mason.  64  N.  H.  7,  3  Atl. 
630;  Carbee  v.  Mason,  64  N.  H.  11,  4  Atl.  792;  Pratt  v.  Eeath,  44 
N.  Y.  599,  4  Am.  Eep.  719;  Phelps  v.  Borland,  103  N.  Y.  410,  57  Am. 
Eep.   756,   9   N.   E.   309;   Eobert  v.   Atherton,   60   Vt.   565,  6  Am.   St. 


419  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

the  state  to  a  nonresident,291  or  where  a  judgment  has  heen 
rendered  in  another  state  in  favor  of  a  nonresident.292  A  debt 
due  a  partnership  is  not  barred  if  one  member  thereof  was  not 
a  resident  of  the  state  of  discharge.293  If  the  attorney  of  a 
foreign  creditor  takes  a  note  for  the  debt,  the  courts  will  re- 
gard the  rights  of  the  beneficial  owner.294  A  state  law  is  valid 
against  a  foreign  creditor,  however,  so  far  as  it  merely  releases 
the  person  of  the  debtor  from  imprisonment,295  and  the  rule 
does  not  operate  to  prevent  a  state  from  providing  that  debtors 
may  assign  for  the  benefit  of  all  creditors,  resident  and  non- 
resident.296 

Laws  which  merely  abolish  imprisonment  for  debt  affect  only 
the  creditor's  remedy  against  an  insolvent  and  do  not  impair 
the  obligation  of  contracts,297  and  a  statute  changing  the  mode 
of  procedure  to  obtain  a  discharge  from  imprisonment  does  not 
affect  any  substantial  right.298  The  effect  of  a  law  abolishing 
imprisonment  for  debt  is  to  discharge  bail  bonds  existing  at 
the  time  of  its  passage.299 

Eep.  154,  15  Atl.  160;  Stirn  v.  McQuade,  66  N.  H.  404,  49  Am.  St. 
Eep.  623,  22  Atl.  452. 

291  McKim  v.  Willis,  83  Mass.  512. 

292  Bean  v.  Loryea,  81  Cal.  153,  22  Pac.  513;  Lowenberg  v.  Levine, 
93  Cal.  220,  28>  Pac.  942,  16  L.  B.  A.  159. 

293  Chase  v.  Henry,  166  Mass.  579,  55  Am.  St.  Eep.  424,  44  N.  E. 
988. 

294  Isley  v.  Merian,  61  Mass.  242;   Crow  v.  Coons,  27  Mo.  512. 

295  Glenn  v.  Humphreys,  4  Wash.  C.  C.  424,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5880; 
Choteau  v.  Eichardson,  94  Mass.  368;  Carey  v.  Conrad,  2  Miles,  92; 
Donnelly  v.  Corbett,  7  N.  Y.  500. 

296  Denny  v.  Bennett,  128  U.  S.  497,  9  S.  Ct.   137,  32  L.  ed.  491. 

297  Sturges  v.  Crowninshield,  4  Wheat.  200,  4  L.  ed.  529;  In  re 
Penniman,  103  U.  S.  717,  26  L.  ed.  602;  affirming,  11  E.  I.  338;  Wood- 
hull  v.  Wagner,  1  Baldw.  298,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  19,975;  Towne  v.  Smith, 
1  Wood.  &  M.  130,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,115;  Beers  v.  Houghton,  9  Pet. 
329,  9  L.  ed.  145;  Planters'  Bank  v.  Sharp,  6  How.  328,  12  L.  ed. 
447;  Newton  v.  Tibbatts,  7  Ark.  150;  Taylor  v.  Keeler,  30  Conn.  324; 
Fisher  v.  Lacky,  6  Blackf.  373;  Eay  v.  Cannon,  2  Mart.  26;  Bronson 
v.  Newberry,  2  Doug.  (Mich.)  38;  Brown  v.  Dillahunty,  12  Miss.  713, 
43  Am.  Dec.  499;  Woodfin  v.  Hopper,  4  Humph.  21. 

298  Oriental  Bank  v.  Freeze,  18  Me.  109,  36  Am.  Dec.  701;  Mor^e 
v.  Eice,  21  Me.  53. 

299  Mason  v.  Haile,  12  Wheat.  378,  6  L.  ed.  660;  Beers  v  Hough- 
ton, 9  Pet.  359,  9  L.  ed.  145;  Newton  v.  Tibbatts,  7  Ark.  153;  Towsey 
v.  Avery,  11  Ohio,  93;  Bronson  v.  Newberry,  2  Doug.   (Mich.)    47,  48. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  420 

An  act   providing  for  the  discharge  of  debtors  from  all  fu- 
ture actions  at  the  suit  of  suing  creditors  or  creditors  who  have 

received  dividends  from  the  debtor's  estate  is  valid,300  as  also 
is  a  law  allowing  debtors  to  assign  for  the  benefit  of  consent- 
ing creditors.301  The  legislature  may  also  provide  that  cred- 
itors of  insolvent  corporations  must  dissent  from  measures 
adopted  for  the  welfare  of  all  parties,  or  be  deemed  to  assent 
thereto.'50,2  A  law  providing  for  the  distribution  of  the  assets 
of  an  insolvent  estate  is  valid  as  against  general  creditors.303 
and  an  act  to  secure  the  payment  of  debts  without  preference 
of  the  debts  of  certain  manufacturing  corporations  organized 
under  general  law  does  not  impair  contract  obligations.304 
General  provisions  for  the  appointment  of  receivers  for  insol- 
vent corporations  are  unobjectionable,305  but  it  is  beyond  the 
power  of  the  legislature  to  provide  for  receivers  for  property  in 
possession  of  mortgagees  under  existing  chattel  mortgages,  un- 
less it  is  imperatively  necessary  to  secure  the  rights  of  other 
parties.306  The  assignment  of  a  corporation's  property  and 
the  cancellation  of  its  charter  with  the  legislature's  consent  is 
not  unconstitutional  as  violating  the  corporation's  contracts,307 
and  a  state  law  authorizing  banks  to  assign  for  the  benefit  of 
their  creditors  does  not  impair  a  contract  by  which  a  bank  re- 
ceives its  notes  in  payment  of  debts.30S  Acts  providing  for  the 
dissolution  of  attachments  made  within  a  certain  time  prior 
to  assignments  do  not  impair  contract  obligations.309     So,  also, 

300  Alexander  v.  Gibson,  1  Nott  &  McG.  480;  Downes  v.  Parshall, 
3  Wyo.  425,  26  Fac.  994. 

301  Keating  v.  Vaughn,  61  Tex.  518. 

302  Gilfillan  v.  Union  Canal  Co.,  109  U.  S.  404,  3  S.  Ct.  304,  27 
L.  ed.  977,  affirming  93  Pa.  St.  95. 

303  Appeal  of  Deichman,  2  Whart.  395,  30  Am.  Dec.  271. 

304  Story  v.  Fnrman,  25  N.  Y.  214. 

305  Hall  v.  Carey,  5  Ga.  239. 

306  Patten  v.  Accessory  Traction  Co.,  13  How.  Pr.  502,  4  Abb.  Pr. 
235. 

307  Momma  v.  Potomac  Co.,  8  Pet.  287,  8  L.  ed.  945. 

308  Knox  v.  Exchange  Bank,  12  Wall.  384,  20  L.  ed.  414. 

309  Denny  v.  Bennett,  128  IT.  S.  489,  9  S.  Ct.  134,  32  L.  ed.  491; 
Sloane  v.  Chiniquy,  22  Fed.  213;  Bank  of  Columbia  v.  Overstreet,  10 
Bush  (Ky.),  148;  Bigelow  v.  Pritchard,  21  Pick.  169;  "Wendell  v.  Lc- 
bon,  30  Minn.  234;  Baldwin  v.  Buswell,  52  Vt.  57. 


121  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  1,  §  10,  CI.  1 

an  act  providing  that  conveyances  preferring  creditors  made 
within  four  months  before  the  commencement  of  insolvency 
proceedings  shall  be  void  is  not  unconstitutional  as  to  a  non- 
resident creditor  whose  conveyance  was  made  subsequently;310 
such  an  act  is  a  legitimate  regulation  of  transfers  of  prop- 
erty.311 

After  the  creation  of  debts  of  equal  rank  the  legislature  can- 
not interfere  to  provide  that  one  class  of  debts  shall  have 
priority  over  the  other.312  On  the  other  hand,  it  has  been  held 
that  a  law  creating  preference  in  favor  of  certain  classes  of 
debts  constitutes  no  part  of  a  contract,  and  an  act  passed  after 
a  debt  was  contracted  abrogating  the  preference  is  valid.313 
An  insolvent  law  discharging  the  person  and  after-acquired 
property  is  not  repugnant  to  the  constitution.314 

An  amendment  to  an  insolvent  act  is  ineffectual  to  discharge 
a  debtor  from  liability  previously  contracted,  the  effect  of  the 
amendment  being  to  reduce  the  number  of  creditors  who  may 
grant  a  release;315  but  an  amendatory  act  which  is  more  strin- 
gent and  burdensome  on  the  debtor  than  the  act  amended  can- 
not be  objected  to  by  a  creditor  on  the  ground  that  it  is  retro- 
active.316 Creditors  who  have  accepted  dividends  under  an 
assignment  by  a  corporation  cannot  claim  the  invalidity  of  the 
assignment  law  in  order  to  collect  the  balance  from  the  stock- 
holders.317 

3io  Brown  v.  Smart,  145  U.  S.  454,  12  S.  Ct.  958,  36  L.  ed.  773, 
affirming  69  Mel.  320,  14  Atl.  468. 

311  Knower  v.  Haines,  31  Fed.  513.  But  see  Lloyd  v.  Akin,  78 
N.  C.  258. 

312  Sun  Mutual  Ins.  Co.  v.  Board  of  Liquidation,  24  Fed.  4;  Atcha- 
falaya  E.  R.  etc.  Co.  v.  Bean,  3  Bob.  (La.)  415.  But  see  Luther  v. 
Saylor,  8  Mo.  App.  424;  Umbenhauer  v.  Miller,  1  Woodw.  Dec.  69. 

313  Inglefritz  v.  Inglefritz,  5  Watts,  158;  Appeal  of  Deichman,  2 
Whart.  395,  30  Am.  Dec.  271. 

314  Wilson  v.  Matthews,   32   Ala.   332. 

315  In. re  Wendell,  19  Johns.  153. 

316  Hundley  v.  Chaney,  65  Cal.  363,  4  Pac.  238. 

317  Van  Hook  v.  Whitlock,  26  Wend.  53,  37  Am.  Dec.  248. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  422 

Mortgage  and  Redemption  Laws. 

The  right  to  redeem  according  to  the  laws  existing  at  the 
time  a  mortgage  is  executed  constitutes  part  of  the  mortgage 
contract  and  not  part  of  the  remedy  merely,318  and  it  is  a  right 
which  inheres  in  the  contract  as  to  both  mortgagor  and  mort- 
gagee. Accordingly  a  law  giving  a  right  of  redemption  where 
none  previously  existed,  or  extending  the  period  allowed,  so 
alters  the  remedy  of  the  creditor  as  to  impair  the  obligation  of 
an  existing  mortgage.319  On  the  other  hand,  laws  abolishing 
the  right  to  redeem  or  shortening  the  period  previously  al- 
lowed cannot  operate  to  impair  the  rights  of  a  mortgagor  under 
an  existing  mortgage.320 

A  statute  giving  the  right  to  redeem  at  any  time  within  a 
certain  period  cannot  retroact.321  The  legislature  may  give  to 
the  mortgagor  the  right  to  remain  in  possession  during  the  re- 
demption period,322  but  a  statute  providing  that  the  mortgagor 
shall  not  be  liable  for  rents  and  profits  after  the  sale  is  void 

3is  Brine  v.  Insurance  Co.,  96  U.  S.  637,  639,  24  L.  ed.  858. 

319  Bronson  v.  Kinzie,  1  How.  318,  11  L.  ed.  143;  Howard  v. 
Bugbee,  24  How.  464,  16  L.  ed.  753;  Clark  v.  Reyburn,  8  Wall.  322, 
19  L.  ed.  354;  Barnitz  v.  Beverly,  163  U.  S.  129,  16  S.  Ct.  1043,  VI 
L.  ed.  93,  reversing  55  Kan.  469,  49  Am.  St.  Eep.  260,  42  Pae.  726, 
31  L.  R.  A.  74;  Lehman  v.  Moore,  93  Ala.  189,  9  South.  592;  Robards  v. 
Brown,  40  Ark.  426;  Oliver  v.  McClure,  28  Ark.  561;  Allen  v.  Allen, 
95  Cal.  197,  30  Pae.  215,  16  L.  R.  A.  646;  Bixby  v.  Bailey,  11  Kan. 
368;  Watkins  v.  Glenn,  55  Kan.  429,  40  Pae.  319;  Phinney  v.  Phinney, 
81  Me.  462,  10  Am.  St.  Rep.  270,  17  Atl.  40S,  4  L.  R.  A.  348;  Benson 
v.  Bunting,  127  Cal.  532,  78  Am.  St.  Rep.  81,  59  Pae.  991;  State  v. 
Sears,  29  Or.  508,  54  Am.  St.  Rep.  808,  43  Pae.  482;  Gorham  v.  Wing, 
10  Mich.  498;  Heyward  v.  Judd,  4  Minn.  490;  Canadian  etc.  Co.  V. 
Blake,  24  Wash.  102,  85  Am.  St.  Rep.  946,  63  Pae.  1100. 

320  Clark  v.  Reyburn,  8  Wall.  322,  19  L.  ed.  354;  Singer  Mfg.  Co. 
v.  MeCollock,  24  Fed.  669;  Cargill  v.  Power,  1  Mich.  371,  372;  Beck 
v.  Burnett,  22  Ala.  822.  But  see  State  ex  rel.  v.  Gilliam,  18  Mont. 
99,  44  Pae.  396;  Tuolumne  Redemption  Co.  v.  Sedgwick,  15  Cal.  528, 
529. 

321  Howard  v.  Bugbee,  24  How.  461,  16  L.  ed.  753,  overruling  32 
Ala.  317;  Seale  v.  Mitchell,  5  Cal.  401;  Thorn  v.  San  Francisco,  4 
Cal.  127;  Malony  v.  Fortune,  14  Iowa,  417. 

322  Heyward  v.  Judd,  4  Minn.  483;  Berthold  v.  Holman,  12  Minn. 
335;  Berthold  v.  Fox,  13  Minn.  501,  97  Am.  Dec.  243. 


423  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

so  far  as  it  purports  to  apply  to  prior  mortgages.323  Where 
the  contract  between  the  mortgagor  and  mortgagee  is  not  af- 
fected, a  law  passed  subsequent  to  the  mortgage  providing  that 
an  occupant  other  than  the  mortgagor  shall  be  liable  for  the 
rents  and  profits  during  the  redemption  period  is  unobjection- 
able.324 

Laws  providing  for  a  stay  of  foreclosure  under  mortgages, 
or  denying  the  right  to  sell  under  deeds  of  trust  without  legal 
proceedings,  are  also  subject  to  the  constitutional  prohibition  • 
and  cannot  operate  retrospectively,325  although  the  allowance 
to  a  defendant  of  six  months  in  which  to  answer  has  been  held 
unobjectionable.326  The  legislature  cannot  change  the  estate 
which  the  trustee  is  authorized  to  sell  under  a  deed  of  trust 
and  create  or  extend  a  redemption  period;327  but  a  statute  may 
prescribe  a  shorter  period  for  the  advertising  of  foreclosure 
sales,  and  apply  to  existing  mortgages.328  A  law  authorizing 
sales  on  credit  cannot  operate  as  to  mortgages  executed  previ- 
ously.329 So,  also,  a  mortgagee,  having  title,  is  entitled  to 
ejectment  upon  breach  of  condition  before  foreclosure,  and  this 
right  cannot  be  impaired  by  a  subsequent  statute,330  and  where 
a  mortgagee  takes  title  to  the  growing  crops  of  a  mortgagor  or 
his  tenant,  who  leased  with  knowledge  of  the  mortgage,  a  sub- 
sequent statute  exempting  the  tenant's*  property  is  inoperative 
to  defeat  any  right  of  the  mortgagee  under  the  previous  law.331 

The  same  rule  exists  in  the  case  of  sales  of  property  under 
execution  to  satisfy  judgments.332     A  law  authorizing  the  re- 

323  Greenfield  v.  Dorris,  1  Sneed,  548;  Canadian  etc.  Co.  v.  Blake, 
24  Wash.  102,  85  Am.  St.  Eep.  946,  63  Pac.  1100. 

324  Edwards  v.  Jordan,  105  Ind.  594,  5  N.  E.  716;  Davis  v.  Eeipe, 
114  Ind.  588,  17  N.  E.  163. 

325  Fisher  v.  Green,  142  111.  93,  31  N.  E.  176;  Fanning  v.  Kerr, 
7  Iowa,  462;  Taylor  v.  Stearns,  18  Gratt.  286;  Swinburne  v.  Mills, 
17  Wash.  617,  61  Am.  St.  Kep.  936,  50  Pac.  490. 

326  Von  Baumbach  v.  Bade,  9  Wis.  576,  76  Am.  Dee.  287. 

327  Heyward  v.  Judd,  4  Minn.  483;  Goenen  v.  Schroeder,  8  Minn. 
387;  Carroll  v.  Eossiter,  10  Minn.  174. 

328  James  v.  Stull,  9  Barb.  482. 

329  Tooley  v.  Gridley,  3  Smedes  &  M.  516,  41  Am.  Dec.  632. 

330  Mundy  v.  Monroe,  1  Mich.  75,  76. 

331  Eeed  v.  Swan,  133  Mo.  109,  34  S.  W.  485. 

332  People  v.  San  Francisco,  4  Cal.  139;  Scobey  v.  Gibson,  17  Ind. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  424 

demption  of  property  sold  at  forced  sale  impairs  the  obligation 
of  contracts.333  The  legislature  cannot  extend  the  time  for 
the  redemption  of  land  sold  for  taxes,334  nor  give  a  right  to 
redeem  land  sold  to  satisfy  municipal  claims.335  Nor  can  the 
legislature,  as  to  tax  sales  previously  made,  amend  a  statute  al- 
lowing redemption  so  as  to  impose  new  and  more  onerous  con- 
ditions upon  the  exercise  of  the  right.3"6  So,  also,  laws  for 
the  release  and  discharge  of  securities  are  in  conflict  with  this 
provision,337  and  laws  allowing  a  debtor  to  remove  his  prop- 
erty are  void  as  to  prior  judgment  liens.338 

A  distinction  may  be  drawn,  however,  between  laws  provid- 
ing for  redemption  before  execution  and  sale  and  those  per- 
mitting it  after.  A  statute  may  provide  that  all  judicial  sales 
shall  be  made  subject  to  the  right  of  redemption  without  vio- 
lating the  obligation  of  existing  judgments.339  But  after  a 
sale  under  execution,  the  rights  of  purchaser  and  judgment 
debtor  are  fixed  as  by  contract  and  the  legislature  cannot  sub- 
sequently authorize  redemption  after  a  longer  time  or  for  a 
less  sum.340     Acts  depriving  purchasers  at  execution  sales  of 

578,  79  Am.  Dec.  492;  Danks  v.  Quackenbush,  1  N.  Y.  132;  Hepburn 
v.  Kerr,  9  Humph.  728,  51  Am.  Dec.  686;  Collins  v.  Collins,  79  Ivy. 
91;   Inglehart  v.  Wolfin,   20  Md.   32. 

333  Bronson  v.  Kinzie,  1  How.  311,  11  L.  ed.  143;  McCracken  v. 
Hayward,  2  How.  608,  11  L.  ed.  397;  Gantly  v.  Ewing,  3  How.  716, 
11  L.  ed.  794;  Howard  v.  Bugbee,  24  How.  464,  16  L.  ed.  753;  Weaver 
v.  Maillot,  15  La.  Ann.  395;  Billmeyer  v.  Evans,  42  Pa.  St.  324;  Bunn 
v.  Gorgas,  41  Pa.  St.  441;  Oliver  v.  McClure,  28  Ark.  555;  Scobey  v. 
Gibson,  17  Ind.  572,  79  Am.  Dec.  490. 

334  Eobinson  v.  House,  13  Wis.  341;  Dikeman  v.  Dikeman,  11  Paige, 
484.     But  see  Gault's  Appeal,  33  Pa.  St.  94. 

335  Hull  v.  State,  29  Fla.  88,  30  Am.  St,  Pep.  98,  11  South.  98,  16 
L.  R.  A.  308;  Gault's  Appeal,  33  Pa.  St.  101. 

336  Teralta  Land  etc.  Co.  v.  Shaffer,  116  Cal.  518,  5S  Am.  St.  Pep. 
:94,  48  Pae.  613. 

337  Swift  v.  Fletcher,  6  Minn.  550. 

338  Tillotson  v.  Millard,  7  Minn.  513,  S2  Am.  Dec.  112. 

339  Moore  v.  Martin,  38  Cal.  428;  Turner  v.  Watkins,  31  Ark.  429; 
Tuolumne  Redemption  Co.  v.  Sedgwick,  15  Cal.  515;  Wilson  v.  Wold, 
21  Wash.  398,  75  Am.  St.  Rep.  846,  58  Pac.  223. 

340  Thresher  v.  Atchison,  117  Cal.  73,  59  Am.  St.  Rep.  159,  4S 
Pac.  1020. 


425  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CL'  1 

the  right  to  rents  and  profits  up  to  the  time  of  redemption  are 
denied  retroactive  effect  as  to  prior  sales;341  but  where  a  sale 
was  made  after  the  passage  of  the  law.  there  can  be  no  objec- 
tion to  the  law,  for  it  does  not  impair  any  obligation  as  be- 
tween the  original  debtor  and  creditor,  and  all  sales  under  exe- 
cution are  to  be  governed  by  the  laws  in  force  at  the  time  of 
sale,342  and  it  is  on  this  theory  that  it  was  held  that  when  a 
mortgagor  applies  to  a  court  for  the  enforcement  of  his  mort- 
gage he  must  take  the  remedy  as  he  finds  it.343 

Appraisement  laws  are  subject  to  the  constitutional  prohibi- 
tion against  impairing  the  obligation  of  contracts,  and  an  act 
providing  for  the  appraisal  of  mortgaged  property  and  forbid- 
ding sales  for  less  than  two-thirds  of  the  appraised  value  can- 
not apply  to  mortgages  previously  executed.344  The  law  in  re- 
gard to  valuation  and  appraisement  in  force  when  a  mortgage 
is  executed  enters  into  and  becomes  part  of  the  mortgage  con- 
tract and  cannot  be  affected  by  subsequent  laws,345  and  sales 
made  pursuant  to  a  later  law  may  be  avoided.346  The  judg- 
ment of  foreclosure  is  not  a  new  contract  which  will  give  the 
new  law  operation.347  It  has  been  held  that  a  contract  made 
in  one  state  could  not  be  deemed  to  have  been  made  with  refer- 
ence to  the  law  of  another,  and  a  valuation  law  of  the  latter 
state,  passed  after  the  execution  of  a  contract,  governed  a  sale 
to  satisfy  a  judgment  on  the  contract.348 

341  Greenfield  v.  Dorris,  1  Sneed,  550;  Travelers'  Ins.  Co.  v.  Brouse, 
83  Tnd.  66. 

342  Davis  v.  Eupe,  114  Ind.  594,  17  N.  E.  116;  Wilson  v.  Wold,  21 
Wash.  398,  75  Am.  St.  Rep.  846,  58  Pac.  223. 

343  Heyward  v.  Judd,  4  Minn.  483. 

344  Bronson  v.  Kinzie,  1  How.  318,  319,  11  L.  ed.  143;  McCrackea 
v.  Hayward,  2  How.  608,  11  L.  ed.  397;  Gaiitly  v.  Ewing,  3  How.  707, 
11  L.  ed.  794;  Moore  v.  Fowler,  Hemp.  536,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9761;  Eo- 
bards  v.  Brown,  40  Ark.  423;  Eosier  v.  Hale,  10  Iowa,  470,  77  Am. 
Dec.  127;  Olmstead  v.  Kellogg,  47  Iowa,  460;  Benedict  v.  Thompson, 
Walk.  Ch.  447;  Willard  v.  Longstreet,  2  Doug.  175.  Contra,  United 
States  v.  Conway,  Hemp.  314,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,S49;  Chadwick  v. 
Moore,  8  Watts  &  S.  49,  42  Am.  Dec.  267. 

345  Dorrington  v.  Myers,  11  Neb.  388,  9  N.  W.  555;  Lancaster  Sav. 
list.  v.  Eeigart,  2  Clarke,  23S. 

346  Sheets  v.  Peabody,  7  Blackf.  614,  43  Am.  Dec.  108;  Franklin 
v.  Thurston,  8  Blackf.   161;   Burton  v.  Emerson,  4  G.  Greene,  395. 

347  Crane  v.  Hardy,  1  Mich.  62. 

348  Hefferlin   v.   Sinsinderfer,  2   Kan.   403,   85   Am.   Dec.   593. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  426 


Lien  Laws. 


Liens  created  by  law  are  subject  to  alteration,  modification 
or  repeal.349  A  lien  created  by  statute  in  favor  of  a  creditor 
on  property  of  his  debtor  is  merely  a  part  of  the  remedy  af- 
forded for  the  collection  of  his  debt,350  and  a  law  creating  a 
lien  upon  the  property  of  a  debtor  in  favor  of  an  existing  con- 
tract creditor  is  valid.351  So,  also,  the  legislature  may  give 
to  mechanics  and  laborers  a  lien  for  their  services  although  at 
the  time  the  contract  to  build  was  executed  no  such  right  ex- 
isted;35- likewise  as  to  liens  given  to  materialmen,353  and  laws 
giving  such  liens  priority  over  existing  encumbrances  have  been 
upheld.354  Merely  altering  and  enlarging  the  remedy  for  the 
enforcement  of  mechanics'  liens  after  foreclosure  sale  does  not 
impair  the  contracts  of  the  mortgagee  or  the  purchaser.355 
Nor  does  a  statute  extending  the  time  for  the  enforcement  of 

349  Evans  v.  Montgomery,  4  Watts  &  S.  218;  Patin  v.  Prejean, 
7  La.  301;  Woodbury  v.  Grimes,  1  Colo.  100;  Templeton  v.  Home,  82 
Jll.  401;  Wilson  v.  Simon,  91  Md.  1,  SO  Am.  St.  Eep.  427,  45  Atl. 
1022. 

350  Bangor  v.  Goding,  35  Me.  73,  56  Am.  Dec.  688. 

351  Gordon  v.  Canal  Co.,  1  McAr.  513,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5621;  Brien  7. 
Clay,  1  E.  D.  Smith,  649;  Bolton  v.  Johns,  5  Pa.  St.  145,  47  Am.  Pee. 
404.     But  see  Kinney  v.  Sherman,  28  111.  520. 

352  Gordon  v.  Canal  Co.,  1  McAr.  513,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5621;  O'Neil 
v.  St.  Olaf ' s  School,  26  Minn.  329,  4  N.  W.  47;  Colpetzer  v.  Trinity 
Church,  24  Neb.  113,  37  N.  W.  931;  Sullivan  v.  Brewster,  1  E.  D. 
Smith,  739;  Albright  v.  Smith,  2  S.  Dak.  577,  51  N.  W.  590,  3  S.  Dak. 
631,  54  N.  W.  816;  Bolton  v.  Johns,  5  Pa.  St.  145,  47  Am.  Dec.  404; 
Spokane  etc  Co.  v.  McChesney,  1  Wash.  609,  21  Pac.  198.  But  see 
Kinney  v.  Sherman,  28  111.  520. 

353  Kellogg  v.  Howes,  81  Cal.  170,  22  Pac.  509,  6  L.  E,  A.  588; 
Davies-Henderson  Lumber  Co.  v.  Gottschalk.  81  Cal.  641,  22  Pac.  860; 
Doughty  v.  Devlin,  1  E.  D.  Smith,  625;  Gurney  v.  Walsham,  16  E.  1. 
698,  19  Atl.  323;  Albright  v.  Smith,  3  S.  Dak.  631,  54  N.  W.  816. 

354  Walker  v.  Mississippi  Valley  etc.  Ey.  Co.,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,070; 
Sitton  v.  Dubois,  14  Wash.  624,  45  Pac.  303;  Wimberly  v.  Mayberry, 
94  Ala.  240,  10  South.  157,  14  L.  R.  A.  305;  Garr  v.  Clements.  4  N. 
Dak.  559,  62  N.  W.  640.  But  see  Yeatman  v.  Foster  Co.,  2  N  Dak. 
421,  33  Am.  St.  Eep.  797,  51  N.  W.  721;  Meyer  v.  Berlandi,  39  Minn. 
438,  12   Am.  St.  Eep.  663,  40  N.  W.  513,  1  L.  E.  A.   777. 

355  Eed  Eiver  Valley  Bank  v.  Craig,  181  U.  S.  55S,  21  S.  Ct.  703, 
45  L.   ed.   994. 


427  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

mechanics'  liens  impair  any  contract  obligations.356  There 
can  be  no  objection  to  any  law  which  operates  merely  upon  the 
remedy  given  by  a  mechanic's  lien  law.357  A  party  may  be 
deprived  of  a  lien  given  him  by  statute,358  unless  the  right  to 
the  lien  has  become  vestecl.358a  And  if  the  rights  of  the 
parties  to  a  building  contract  have  accrued  before  the  passage 
of  amendments  to  a  mechanic's  lien  law  the  amendments  can- 
not govern.359 

Judgment  liens  are  subject  to  the  same  rules,  and  a  law  pro- 
viding that  a  judgment  shall  constitute  a  lien  upon  the  debtor's 
property  may  apply  to  existing  judgments.360  The  repeal  of 
a  statute  giving  a  judgment  creditor  a  lien  has  been  held  retro- 
active,361 but  later  cases  have  declared  the  judgment  lien  to  be 
a  material  part  of  the  remedy,  which  cannot  be  abrogated 
without  impairing  existing  contracts.362  A  statute  requiring 
the  recordation  of  judgments  in  order  to  preserve  the  lien  may 
retroact,363  and  a  statute  authorizing  the  sale  of  property  free 
from  encumbrance  and  transferring  the  lien  to  the  proceeds  is 

356  Garland  v.  Irrigation  Co.,  9  Utah,  360,  34  Pac.  370. 

357  Albright  v.  Smith,  2  S.  Dak.  577,  51  N.  W.  590;  Best  v.  Baum- 
gardner,  122  Pa.  St.  17,  15  Atl.  691,  1  L.  E.  A.  356;  Osborn  v.  D. 
Johnson  etc.  Co.,  99  Ala.  309,  13  South.  776. 

358  Wilson  v.  Simon,  91  Md.  1,  80  Am.  St.  Eep.  427,  45  Atl.  1022. 
358a  Kirkwood  v.  Hoxie,  95  Mich.  62,  35  Am.  St.  Rep.  549,  54  N. 

W.  720. 

359  Spangler  v.  Green,  21  Colo.  505,  52  Am.  St.  Eep.  259,  42  Pac. 
674. 

360  Livingston  v.  Moore,  7  Pet.  546-562;  Moore  v.  Letchford,  35 
Tex.  213,  14  Am.  Eep.  367. 

361  Bank  v.  Longworth,  1  McLean,  35,  Fed  Cas.  No.  923;  Iverson 
v.  Shorter,  9  Ala.  713;  Beck  v.  Burnett,  22  Ala.  822;  Daily  v.  Burko, 
28  Ala.  328;  Curry  v.  Landers,  35  Ala.  280;  Moore  v.  Holland,  16  S. 
C.  24;  McCormick  v.  Alexander,  2  Ohio,  285. 

362  Murphy  v.  Gaskins,  28  Gratt.  207;  Eatcliffe  v.  Anderson,  31 
Gratt.  105,  31  Am.  Eep.  716;  Gilnian  v.  Tucker,  128  N.  Y.  190.  26 
Am.  St.  Eep.  464,  28  N.  E.  1040,  13  L.  E,  A.  304;  Merchants'  Bank 
v.  Ballou,  98  Va.  112,  81  Am.  St.  Eep.  715,  32  S.  E.  481,  44  L.  E.  A. 
306. 

363  Louisiana  v.  New  Orleans,  102  U.  S.  207,  26  L.  ed.  132;  Tarp- 
ley  v.  Hamer,  17  Miss.  310. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  428 

valid;304  but  a  statute  permitting  a  sale  whether  the  property 
brings  the  amount  of  the  encumbrance,  or  giving  preference  to 
other  claims  on  the  proceeds,  is  void.365 

The  legislature  cannot  discharge  absolutely  a  lien  already 
existing  under  attachment,  although  it  may  suspend  the  en- 
forcement of  the  lien;366  nor  can  the  legislature  change  a 
privileged  into  an  ordinary  creditor.367  An  act  whereby  the 
legislature  undertakes  to  restore  an  attachment  already  dis- 
solved and  after  the  property  has  been  sold  to  a  bona  fide  pur- 
chaser is  equally  void.368  The  legislature  cannot  interfere 
with  a  lien  created  by  special  contract  whereby  a  debtor  makes 
his  property  absolutely  liable  for  his  debts.369 

Rights  of  Action  and  Defenses. 


A  statute  creating  a  right  of  action  on  a  contract  previously 
executed  or  on  a  debt  previously  incurred  does  not  impair  any 
contract  obligation;  it  rather  declares  a  means  by  which  the 
obligation  may  be  enforced.370  So  where  an  equitable  right 
exists  the  legislature  may  create  a  legal  remedy  in  favor  of  the 
holder,371  and  where  a  moral  obligation  exists  for  which  there 

364  Potts  v.  Water  Power  Co.,  9  N.  J.  Eq.  592;  Potts  v.  New 
Jersey  Arms  Co.,  17  N.  J.  Eq.  395. 

365  Martin  v.  Somervillo,  3  Wall.  Jr.  206,  27  How.  Pr.  161,  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  9165. 

366  Eyan   v.  Wessels,   15  Iowa,  145. 

367  Johnson  v.  Duncan,  3  Mart.,  O.  S.,  530;  Sebatier  v.  Creditors,  6 
Mart.,  N.  S.,  585. 

368  Eidlon  v.  Cressey,  65  Me.  128. 

369  Sebatier  v.   Creditors,  6  Mart.,  N.  S.,  589. 

370  Ewell  v.  Daggs,  108  TJ.  S.  151,  2  S.  Ct.  408,  27  L.  ed.  682; 
Milne  v.  Huber,  3  McLean,  212,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9617;  Leavitt  v.  Kail- 
way  Co.,  90  Me.  164,  37  Atl.  890,  38  L.  R.  A.  152;  Police  Jury  v. 
McDonough,  7  Mart.,  O.  S.,  8;  Wilbur  v.  Gilmore,  21  Pick.  250;  James 
v.  Emmet  Min.  Co.,  55  Mich.  335,  21  N.  W.  361;  Watson  v.  Chicago 
etc.  Ey.  Co.,  46  Minn.  321,  48  N.  W.  1129.  But  see  Coosa  Eiver  Steam- 
boat Co.  v.  Barclay,  30  Ala.  120;  Sutherland  v.  De  Leon,  1  Tex.  250, 
46   Am.  Dec.   100. 

371  Whipple  v.  Farrar,  3  Mich.  436,  64  Am.  Dec.  99;  Atkins  v.  At- 
kins, 18  Neb.  474,  25  N.  W.  724;  Pittsburg  etc.  Turnpike  Co.  v.  Com- 
monwealth, 2  Watts,  433. 


429  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

is  no  remedy  at  law  the  legislature  may  provide  a  remedy.372 
The  repeal  of  usury  laws,  thus  giving  a  right  of  action  on  a 
contract  previously  unenforceable,  does  not  impair  contract  ob- 
ligations.373 A  contract  for  the  payment  of  money  to  an 
association  which  has  no  corporate  existence  may  be  rendered 
actionable  by  subsequent  incorporation.374  The  legislature 
may  allow  a  suit  on  an  official  bond,  instead  of  scire  facias  on 
the  judgment;375  or  may  repeal  a  statute  prohibiting  suits 
against  Indians;376  or  may  allow  one  firm  to  sue  another  al- 
though some  of  the  members  of  one  are  members  of  the 
other;377  or  may  authorize  one  plaintiff  to  recover,  although 
the  other  does  not  establish  his  title;378  or  may  render  a  per- 
son liable  to  suit  by  the  repeal  of  a  statute  under  which  he  was 
exempt.379 

While  the  legislature  cannot  declare  that  certain  facts  shall 
constitute  a  defense  to  a  cause  of  action  on  a  previously  exist- 
ing contract,380  nor  deprive  a  party  of  a  substantial  defense 
the  right  to  which  has  become  vested,381  yet  where  the  right 
to  avoid  a  contract  is  merely  technical  and  the  defense  involves 
no  substantial  equities  the  legislature  may  abrogate  it.382     So 

37  2  Lycoming  County  v.  Union  County,  15  Pa.  St.  166,  53  Am. 
Dec.  575. 

373  Ewell  v.  Daggs,  108  U.  S.  143,  2  S.  Ct.  408,  27  L.  ed.  682; 
Mechanics'  etc.  Savings  Bank  v.  Allen,  28  Conn.  97;  Welch  v.  Wads- 
worth,  30  Conn.  149,  79  Am.  Dec.  236;  Hinman  v.  Goodyear,  56  Conn. 
210,  14  Atl.  S04. 

374  Stein  v.  Indianapolis  etc.  Assn.,  18  Ind.  237,  81  Am.  Dec.  353. 

375  White  v.  Wilkins,  24  Me.  299. 

376  Stokes   v.   Rodman,  5   R.   I.  405. 

377  Hepburn  v.  Curts,  7  Watts,  300,  32  Am.  Dec.  760. 

378  Hinkle  v.  Riffert,  6  Pa.  St.  196. 

379  Stckes  v.  Rodman,  5  R.  T.  405. 

3S0  Cornell  v.  Hichens,  11  Wis.  353;  Hubbard  v.  Brainerd,  35 
Conn.  563;  Craig  v.  Fowler,  59  Iowa,  200,  13  N.  W.  116;  State  v. 
Williams,  10  Tex.  Civ.  App.  346.  30  S.  W.  477. 

ssi  Maguiar  v.  Henry,  84  Ky.  1;  Wieland  v.  Shillock,  24  Minn. 
345;  Williar  v.  Baltimore  Butchers'  etc.  Assn.,  45  Md.  546. 

382  Gibson  v.  Hibbard,  13  Mich.  314;  Hoppack  v.  Stone,  49  Barb. 
524;  First  School  Dist.  of  Stratford  v.  Ufford,  52  Conn.  44;  Baker  v. 
Herndon.  17  Ga.  568;   Christian  v.  Bowman,  49   Minn.  99,  51  N.  W. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  or  Contracts.  430 

a  statute  rendering  a  certain  illegality  of  consideration  no  de- 
fense is  valid  as  to  prior  contracts  ;383  e.  g.,  a  statute  repealing 
usury  laws  and  thus  abrogating  the  defense  of  usury,384  or 
validating  unauthorized  acts  of  corporations  and  so  doing  away 
with  the  plea  of  ultra  vires.383 

The  legislature  may  grant  new  trials  and  create  new  tribu- 
nals of  review  in  order  to  detect  fraudulent  grants  or  reverse 
fraudulent  judgments,380  or  may  grant  the  right  to  appeal, 
or  allow  appeal  without  security  for  costs  or  permit  one  of  sev- 
eral parties  to  appeal,387  or  may  take  away  the  right  of  ap- 
peal,388 or  provide  for  appeals  to  different  courts  of  review,389 
or  authorize  the  filing  of  a  bill  of  review,390  and  a  law  affect- 
ing judgments  not  yet  rendered  on  contracts  is  valid.391  A 
statute  declaring  a  judgment  absolutely  void  and.  authorizing 
a  new  trial  is  unconstitutional.392  A  statute  may  provide  that 
no  scire  facias  shall  issue  to  revive  a  dormant  judgment,393  or 

663;  Bank  of  Missouri  v.  Snelling,  35  Mo.  190;  Sparks  v.  Clapper, 
30  Ind.  204. 

383  Satterlce  v.  Matthewson,  2  Pet.  380,  7  L.  ed.  458;  Hill  v.  Smith, 
1   Morris,   70. 

384  Ewell  v.  Daggs,  108  U.  S.  151,  2  S.  Ct.  408,  27  L.  ed.  682; 
Mechanics'  etc.  Savings  Bank" v.  Allen,  28  Conn.  97;  Welch  v.  Wads- 
worth,  30  Conn.  149,  79  Am.  Dec.  239;  Andrews  v.  Russell,  7  Black:. 
474;  Wilson  v.  Hardesty,  1  Md.  Ch.  66;  Baugher  v.  Nelson,  9  Gill,  299, 
52  Am.  Dec.  694;  Town  of  Danville  v.  Pace,  25  Gratt.  1,  18  Am. 
Rep.  663. 

385  Gross  v.  United  States  Mortgage  Co.,  108  U.  S.  489,  2  S.  Ct. 
947,  27  L.  ed.  795;  Butler  v.  United  States  etc.  Assn.,  97  Tenn.  686, 
37  S.  W.  386;  Mutual  etc.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Winne,  20  Mont.  39,  44  Pac. 
449. 

386  League  v.  De  Young,  11  How.  202,  13  L.  ed.  657. 

387  Todd  v.  Neal,  49  Ala.  266;  Wilder  v.  Lumpkin,  4  Ga.  208; 
Converse  v.  Burrows,  2  Minn.  229;  Davis  v.  Ballard,  1  J.  J.  Marsh. 
563;  Bradlee  v.  Brownsfield,  2  Watts    &  S.  271. 

388  Grover  v.  Coon,  1  N.  Y.  536. 

3S9  Stephens  v.  Cherokee  Nation,  174  U.  S.  485,  19  S.  Ct.  722,  43 
L.  ed.  1041. 

390  Lampeyreac  v.  United  States,  7  Pet.  222,  8  L.  ed.  665;  Ex 
parte   Norton,  44  Ala.  184. 

301   Sprott  v.  Reid,  3     G.  Greene,  480. 

392  Weaver  v.  Lapsley,  43   Ala.   224. 

093  Parker  v.  Shannonhouse,  Phill.  (N.  C.)   209. 


431  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

may  change  the  law  of  costs  as  to  pending  judgments,394  or 
may  reduce  costs  below  the  previously  legal  amount  or  deny 
them  altogether.395  But  a  right  to  costs  already  vested  can- 
not be  taken  away.396 

A  statute  may  require  a  creditor  to  exhaust  his  securities 
before  bringing  suit  on  his  claim,397  or  may  require  that  a 
holder  of  a  certificate  of  purchase  give  notice  to  occupants  of 
land  of  his  intent  to  apply  for  a  deed  a  certain  time  before 
application.398  Where  at  the  time  coupons  of  state  bonds 
were  issued  there  was  a  remedy  by  mandamus  to  compel  a  tax 
collector  to  take  such  coupons  in  payment  of  taxes,  but  there 
was  nothing  to  prevent  collection  pending  the  mandamus  suit, 
a  new  law  requiring  payment  under  protest  does  not  impair 
the  obligation  of  the  bonds.399  The  legislature  cannot,  how- 
ever, require,  as  a  condition  precedent  to  a  suit  on  a  debt,  that 
the  plaintiff  show  that  the  debt  was  returned  for  taxes,  and 
that  taxes  due  thereon  were  paid;  such  an  act  impairs  the  ob- 
ligation of  existing  contracts.400  Nor  can  a  suitor  be  required 
to  take  a  test-oath  of  loyalty  as  to  past  occurrences  before  being 
allowed  to  sue  on  his  claim.401 

Statutes  prescribing  the  names  in  which  suits  shall  be 
brought  may  retroact;  such  statutes  relate  only  to  the  remedies 
provided  for  the  enforcement  of  contracts  and  not  to  the  ob- 
ligation.402 So  a  statute  may  provide  that  suits  must  be 
brought  in  the  name  of  the  real  party  in  interest,403  or  may 

394  Taylor  v.  Keeler,  30  Conn.  324. 

395  Free  v.  Howortk,  19  Ind.  404;  Potter  v.  Sturdevant,  4  Me.  154; 
Bader  v.  S.  B.  Dist.,  36  N.  J.  L.  273. 

396  State  v.  Auditor,  33  Miss.  287. 

397  Swift  v.  Fletcher,  6  Minn.  550. 

398  Curtis  v.  Whitney,  13  Wall.  71,  20  L.  ed.  513;  Coulter  v.  Staf- 
ford, 56  Fed.  566;  Oullahan  v.  Sweeny,  79  Cal.  539,  12  Am.  St.  Bep. 
173,  21  Pae.  961;  Herrick  v.  Niesz,  16  Wash.  78,  47  Pae.  415. 

399  Antoni  v.  Greenhow,  107  U.  S.  780,  2  S.  Ct.  91,  27  L.  ed.  468. 
4f>o  Lathrop  v.  Brown,  1  Woods,  474,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8108;  Mitchell 

v.  Cothrans,  49  Ga.  125;  Kimbro  v.  Bank  of  Fulton,  49  Ga.  419.  But 
see  Garrett  v.  Cordell,  43  Ga.  366;  Walker  v.  Whitehead,  43  Ga.  538. 

401  Pierce  v.  Carskadon,  16  Wall.  239,  21  L.  ed.  276. 

402  Tompkins  v.  Forrestal,  54  Minn.   119,  55  N.   W.   813. 

403  Hancock  v.  Eitchie,  11  Ind.  43. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  432 

allow  the  holder  of  a  detached  coupon  to  sue  thereon  in  his 
own  name,404  or  may  authorize  the  grantee  of  a  rent  charge 
to  sue  in  his  own  name,405  or  allow  an  administrator  de  bonis 
non  to  sue  in  the  name  of  the  state  on  the  bond  of  his  prede- 
cessor,406 or  may  authorize  the  holder  of  a  note  to  sue  in  his 
own  name  on  a  guaranty  of  collection  indorsed  on  it.407  An 
act  authorizing  the  executors  of  a  deceased  person  to  revive  a 
judgment  obtained  by  another  in  the  same  manner  as  if  they 
"were  the  latter's  executors  impairs  the  obligation  of  contracts 
and  is  void.408  A  statute  requiring  makers  and  indorsers  of 
promissory  notes  to  be  sued  in  joint  actions  does  not  impair 
the  obligation  of  any  contract,409  nor  does  a  statute  allow- 
ing a  purchaser  who  has  obtained  a  deed  to  sue  in  his  own 
name  for  the  recovery  of  the  land.410  So  a  purchaser  may  re- 
cover money  paid  for  taxes  and  costs.411  A  statute  directing 
that  promissory  notes  given  to  a  cashier  may  be  sued  and  col- 
lected on  in  the  name  of  the  bank  is  valid  as  to  notes  pre- 
viously given,412  and  an  act  giving  the  right  to  sue  one  joint 
promisor  alone  does  not  affect  the  right  but  merely  the 
remedy.413  A  statute  authorizing  assignees  of  non-negotiable 
notes  to  sue  in  their  own  names  embraces  notes  assigned  pre- 
viously, but  it  cannot  cut  off  any  defense  which  may  have  been 
made  in  the  payee's  names.414 

An  administrator  may  be  authorized  to  apply  to  the  court 
.for  the  sale  of  an  intestate's  real  estate  to  pay  his  debts,415  or 
a  guardian  may  be  empowered  to  sell  real  estate  and  invest 

404  Augusta  Bank  v.  Augusta,  49  Me.  507. 

405  Van  Kensselaer  v.  Hays,  19  N.  Y.  68,  75  Am.  Dec.  278. 

406  Graham  v.  State,  7  Ind.  470. 

407  Waldron  v.  Harring,  28  Mich.  493. 

408  Tate  v.  Bell,  4  Yerg.  202,  26  Am.  Dec.  221. 

409  McMillan  v.  Sprague,  4  How.   (Miss.)   647,  35  Am.  Dec.  412. 

410  Justice  v.  Eddings,  75  N.  C.  581. 

411  Smith   v.  Merchand,   7  Scrg.  &  E.   260,  10  Am.   Dec.  465. 

412  Crawford  v.  Branch  Bank  of  Mobile,  7  How.  279,  12  L.  ed.  700. 

413  Polyart  v.  Goulding,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,701,  1  Brim.  Col.  Cas.  2. 

414  Harlan  v.  Sigler,  1  Morr.  39. 

415  Florentine   v.   Barton,   2   Wall.   210,   17   L.   ed.   783.     And     see 
Brenham  v.  Story,  39  Cal.  179;  Eosier  v.  Fagan,  46  111.  404. 


433  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

the  proceeds  in  other  securities.416  The  legislature  may  au- 
thorize the  discharge  of  a  testamentary  trustee  upon  his  own 
request  and  the  appointment  of  his  successor  without  impair- 
ing any  contract  obligations.417 

Laws  "Regulating  Procedure. 


Laws  regulating  procedure  and  practice  in  the  courts  are 
also  valid  if  they  operate  only  on  the  remedy,  and  the  forms 
and  system  of  courts  and  proceedings  may  be  changed  at  the 
will  of  the  legislature.418  So  the  state  may  create,  alter,  or 
abolish  courts  and  change  their  sessions.419 

The  delay  in  enforcing  claims  resulting  from  the  abolish- 
ment of  certain  courts  relates  only  to  the  remedy  and  does 
not  impair  any  contract  obligations.420  But  a  change  which 
operates  to  deprive  a  creditor  of  all  legal  remedy  for  the  en- 

416  Lobrano  v.  Milligan,  9  Wall.  295,   19  L.  ed.  694. 

417  Williamson  v.  Suydam,  6  Wall.  738,  18  L.  ed.   967. 

41  s  Ogden  v.  Saunders,  12  Wheat.  349,  6  L.  ed.  606;  Livingston  v. 
Moore,  7  Pet.  469,  8  L.  ed.  751;  Terry  v.  Anderson,  95  U.  S.  633, 
24  L.  ed.  365;  Hill  v.  Insurance  Co.,  134  U.  S.  527,  10  S.  Ct.  592,  33 
L.  ed.  994;  Ritbbone  v.  Bradford,  1  Ala.  312;  Grubbs  v.  Harris,  1 
Bibb,  567;  Cutts  v.  Hardee,  38  Ga.  356;  Stoddard  v.  Smith,  5  Binn. 
355;  Smith  v.  Bryan,  34  111.  264;  Burbank  v.  Rumsey,  90  111.  555; 
Maynes  v.  Moore,  16  Ind.  116;  Hopkins  v.  Jones,  22  Ind.  310;  Webb 
v.  Moore,  25  Ind.  4;  Williams  v.  Haines,  27  Iowa,  254,  1  Am.  Rep. 
270;  Citizens'  Bank  v.  Deynoot,  25  La.  Ann.  628;  Wheat  v.  State, 
Minor,  199;  Vanzandt  v.  Waddell,  2  Yerg.  260;  Miller  v.  Smith,  10 
Wend.  441. 

419  Warren  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Etna  Ins.  Co.,  2  Paine,  501,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
17,206;  Rathbone  v.  Bradford,  1  Ala.  312;  Ex  parte  Pollard,  40  Ala. 
77;  Woods  v.  Buie,  5  How.  (Miss.)  285;  Newkirk  v.  Chapron,  17  111. 
344;  Lapsley  v.  Brashears,  4  Litt.  47;  Johnson  v.  Duncan,  3  Mart. 
531,  6  Am.  Dec.  675;  Johnson  v.  Higgins,  3  Met.  (Ky.)  566;  Morse 
v.  Goold,  11  X.  Y.  281;  Scott  v.  Smart,  1  Mich.  295;  State  v.  Barringer, 
Phill.  (N.  C.)  554;  State  v.  Slevin,  16  Mo.  App.  541;  Wood  v.  Wood, 
14  Rich.  148;  Hansrick  v.  Rouse,  17  Ga.  56;  Home  v.  State,  S4  N. 
C.  362;  McElrath  v.  Pittsburgh  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  55  Pa.  St.  189;  Mexican 
National  Ry.  Co.  v.  Musette,  86  Tex.  70S,  26  S.  W.  1075,  24  L.  R. 
A.  642. 

420  Newkirk  v.   Chapron,  17  111.   344;  Johnson  v.  Higgins,  3   Met. 
(Ky.)   566. 

Notes  on  Constitution — 2S 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  434 

forcement  of  his  contract  is  void;421  e.  g.,  a  constitutional  pro- 
vision taking  from  all  the  courts  jurisdiction  to  enforce  con- 
tracts based  upon  considerations  previously  valid.422  The 
legislature  may  reduce  the  number  of  courts  and  thus  incident- 
ally postpone  the  remedy.423  Laws  creating  new  tribunals  of 
review  and  giving  new  rights  of  appeal  in  certain  cases  have 
been  upheld.424  Laws  prescribing  the  venue  in  certain  classes 
of  actions  relate  only  to  the  remedy  upon  previously  executed 
contracts,425  and  alterations  in  the  law  relating  to  changes 
of  venue  are  not  repugnant  to  the  obligation  clause.426  An  act 
confirming  proceedings  previously  open  to  question  is  likewise 
unobjectionable.427 

The  legislature  may  regulate  the  time  and  mode  of  trial  of 
causes  of  action  on  contracts  previously  executed,428  or  change 
the  manner  of  commencing  actions,  serving  notices  and  pro- 
cess.429 An  act  prohibiting  waiver  of  process  and  confession 
of  judgment  by  attorneys  relates  only  to  remedies  and  does  not 
impair  the  obligation  of  contracts  executed  prior  to  its  pas- 
sage.*30    A  statute  may  extend  the  time  for  taking  a  default 

4  21  Jacobs  v.  Smallwood,  63  N.  C.  112;  Johnson  v.  Winslow,  64 
N.  C  27. 

422  French  v.   Tumlin,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5104. 

423  Parker  v.  Sanders,  46  Ark.  235;  Newkirk  v.  Chapron,  17  III. 
348. 

424  League  v.  De  Young,  11  How.  202,  13  L.  ed.  657;  Long's  Ap- 
peal, 87  Pa.  St.  119;  Treasurer  v.  Wygall,  46  Tex.  462. 

425  Sanders  v.  Hillsborough  Ins.  Co.,  44  N.  H.  328. 

426  Long's  Appeal,  87  Pa.  St.  119;  Treasurer  v.  Wygall,  46  Tex. 
462. 

427  Kearny  v.  Taylor,  15  How.  517,  14  L.  ed.  787;  Goshen  v.  Ston- 
ington,  4  Conn.  310,  10  Am.  Dec.  121;  Thornton  v.  McGrath,  1  Duvall, 
349;  Davis  v.  State  Bank,  7  Ind.  316;  Underwood  v.  Lilly,  10  Serg. 
&  E.  97. 

428  Woods  v.  Buie,  5  How.  (Miss.)  285;  Ex  parte  Pollard,  40  Ala. 
77;  Von  Bauinbach  v.  Bade,  9  Wis.  559,  76  Am.  Dee.  283. 

4  29  Railroad  Co.  v.  Hecht,  95  U.  S.  170,  24  L.  ed.  423;  McCreary 
v.  State,  27  Ark.  425;  New  Albany  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  McNamara,  11 
Ind.  543;  United  Companies  v.  Weldon,  47  N.  J.  L.  63,  54  Am.  Rep. 
116;  Holgate  v.  Oregon  etc.  R.  R.,  16  Or.  124,  17  Pac.  680. 

430  Worsham  v.  Stevens,  66  Tex.  89,  17  S.  W.  404. 


435  "  Obligation  of  Conteacts.     Art.  I,  §  10.  CI.  1 

judgment.431  But  a  statute  extending  the  time  for  the  prose- 
cution of  an  action  cannot  operate  to  revive  a  cause  of  action 
already  barred.432 

The  legislature  may  change  or  modify  the  rules  as  to  evi- 
dence receivable  in  the  state  courts,  and  if  the  remedy  for  the 
enforcement  of  an  existing  contract  is  thereby  affected,  its  ob- 
ligation is  not  necessarily  impaired.433  A  law  establishing  a 
rule  of  evidence  respecting  past  transactions  cannot  be  said  to 
impair  contract  obligations.434  But  a  statute  which  so  changes 
the  rules  of  evidence  as  to  render  the  enforcement  of  a  con- 
tract impossible  does  impair  its  obligation  and  is  unconstitu- 
tional.435 So  also  as  to  a  statute  which  makes  certain  evi- 
dence conclusive  of  the  fact  of  indebtedness,  thus  depriving 
the  defendant  of  a  defense  which  was  legal  when  the  contract 
was  made.430  The  legislature  cannot  cut  off  or  destroy  the 
rights  of  a  bona  fide  holder  of  commercial  paper  by  changing 
the  rules  of  pleading  or  evidence.437  An  act  making  a  col- 
lector's report  in  an  application  for  execution  against  land  for 
unpaid  taxes  prima  facie  evidence  of  the  regularity  of  the  as- 
sessment is  valid,43S  as  also  is  an  act  making  the  report  of  an 
auditor  prima  facie  evidence  of  the  facts  stated  therein.439  A 
statute  changing  the  presumption  arising  from  a  tax  deed  is 

431  Von  Baumbaeh  v.  Bade,  9  Wis.  559,  76  Am.  Dec.  283;  Hollo- 
way  v.  Sherman,  12  Iowa,  282,  79  Am.  Dec.  537. 

432  State  v.  Sneecl,  25  Tex.  Supp.  66. 

433  Ogden  v.  Saunders,  12  Wheat.  349,  6  L.  ed.  606;  Scheible  v. 
Bachs,  41  Ala.  423;  Tarleton  v.  Southern  Bank,  41  Ala.  722;  Kirtlaml 
v.  Molton,  41  Ala.  548;  Herbert  v.  Easton,  43  Ala.  547;  Slaughter 
v.  Culpepper,  35  Ga.  26;  Cutts  v.  Hardee,  38  Ga.  356;  Roby  v.  Chi- 
cago, 64  111.  447;  Falls  v.  Wadsworth,  23  Me.  553;  Oriental  Bank  •. 
Freese,  18  Me.  112;  Holmes  v.  Hunt,  122  Mass.  516,  23  Am.  Rep. 
386;  Howa-rd  v.  Moot,  64  N.  Y.  262;  People  v.  Mitchell,  45  Barb.  208. 

434  Herbert  v.  Easton,  43  Ala.  547;  Eich  v.  Flanders,  39  N.  H.  304; 
Tabor  v.  Ward,  83  N.  C.  291. 

435  Marsh  v.  Burroughs,  1  Woods,  463,  Fed.   Cas.  No.  9112. 

436  Hope  Mutual  Ins.  Co.  v.  Flynn,  38  Mo.  483. 

437  Cornell  v.  Hicheus,  11  Wis.  353. 
43S  Burbank  v.  Rumsey,  90  111.  555. 

439  Holmes  v.  Hunt,  122  Miss.  516,  23  Am.  Rep.  386. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  "  436 

constitutional.440  A  statute  making  a  sheriffs  deed  prima 
facie  evidence  that  the  title  of  the  judgment  debtor  passed  to 
and  vested  in  the  grantee  relates  only  to  the  remedy,441  and 
a  statute  permitting  certified  copies  of  sheriff's  deeds,  previ- 
ously recorded,  to  be  given  in  evidence  to  the  same  extent  as 
the  originals  does  not  impair  any  obligation.442  An  act  regu- 
lating proofs  is  valid.443  So  the  legislature  may  dispense  with 
the  necessity  of  proving  the  names  of  the  individual  members 
of  a  firm,444  or  of  the  proving  the  signature  to  a  written  in- 
strument.445 An  act  abolishing  the  distinction  between  sealed 
and  unsealed  instruments  is  likewise  unobjectionable.446  The 
legislature  may  pass  new  laws  calculated  to  facilitate  the 
means  of  ascertaining  what  a  contract  really  was,447  or  may 
permit  inquiry  into  the  consideration  of  a  sealed  instrument 
executed  in  another  state  ;44S  but  a  statute  which  requires 
proof  of  consideration  upon  a  plea  under  oath  that  it  has  been 
used  for  illegal  purposes  is  void.449  A  statute  dispensing  with 
the  necessity  for  proof  of  demand  in  replevin  suits  may  apply 
to  pending  suits.450  The  removal  of  the  disqualification  of 
witnesses  on  the  ground  of  interest  gobs  only  to  the  remedy  on 
existing  contracts,451  and  a  statute  may  make  a  party  to  a 
previously  executed  contract  a  competent  witness  in  his  own 
behalf.452  So  also  a  statute  imposing  disqualifications  upon 
certain  classes  of  witnesses  is  valid.453 

440  Hickox  v.  Tallman,  38  Barb.  608;  Roby  v.  City,  64  111.  447; 
Smith  v.  Cleveland,  17  Wis.  556;  Lain  v.  fcjnepardson,  18  Wis.  59. 

441  Ehle  v.  Brown,  31  Wis.  405. 

442  Foster  v.  Gray,  22  Pa.  St.  9. 

443  Wood  v.  New  York,  6  Robt.  463. 

444  Ballard  v.  Ridgley,  Morr.  27. 

4  45  Ingraham  v.  Dooley,  Morr.  2^. 

446  Williams  v.  Haines,  27  Iowa,  254,  1  Am.  Rep.  270. 

447  Woodfin   v.    Slader,   Phill.    (N.    C.)    200. 

448  Williams  v.  Haines,  27  Iowa.  254,  1  Am.  Rep.  270. 

449  Marsh  v.  Burroughs,  1  Woods,  463,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9112.  And 
see  Edwards  v.  Dixon,  53  Ga.  334. 

450  Stockwell  v.  Robinson,  9  Houst.  313,  32  Atl.  528. 
45i    Rich  v.  Flanders,   39  N.  H.   323. 

452  Ralston  v.  Lothian,  18  Ind.  303;  Neass  v.  Mercer,  15  Barb,  318; 
Walthall  v.  Walthall,  42  Ala.  450;  Wormley  v.  Hamburg,  40  Iowa, 
22. 

453  O 'Bryan  v.  Allen,  108  Mo.  227,  18  S.  W.  892. 


437  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

A  law  allowing  the  jury  to  determine  the  value  of  a  contract 
in  suit  independently  of  the  stipulations  of  the  parties  is  un- 
constitutional ;454  but  the  legislature  may  provide  that  either 
party  may  give  in  evidence  the  consideration,  its  value,  the 
intent  of  the  parties  as  to  its  payment,  and  may  direct  that 
the  verdict  and  judgment  be  based  upon  principles  of  equity.455 
A  retrospective  statute  which  provides  that  no  verdict  shall 
be  rendered  unless  a  contract  has  been  legally  returned  for 
taxes   is  unconstitutional.456 

A  law  merely  regulating  the  mode  of  issuing  executions  on 
judgments  previously  rendered  affects  only  the  remedy,  and  is 
constitutional.457  So  an  act  confirming  irregular  levies  is 
valid/58  and  this  is  true  of  a  law  providing  for  the  vacation 
oi  irregular  levies  and  the  correction  of  errors  within  a  cer- 
tain time.459  So  also  the  repeal  of  a  law  authorizing  execu- 
tory process  on  foreign  judgments  is  valid  although  applied 
to  process  issued  before  the  repeal.460 

Police  Regulations  as  Affecting  Obligation. 

All  contracts  are  inherently  subject  to  the  paramount  power 
of  the  sovereign,  the  exercise  of  which  is  never  understood  to 
involve  their  violation  within  the  meaning  of  the  obligation 

454  Wilmington  etc.  B.  K.  Co.  v.  King,  91  U.  S.  5,  23  L.  ed.  186; 
Effinger  v.  Kenny,  115  U.  S.  571,  6  S.  Ct.  182,  29  L.  ed.  495;  Palmer 
v.  Love,  82  N.  C.  479;  Leach  v.  Smith,  25  Ark.  246;  Woodruff  v.  Tilly, 
25  Ark.  309. 

455  Slaughter  v.  Culpepper,  35  Ga.  25;  Cutts  v.  Hardee,  38  Ga. 
350:  Taylor  v.  Flint,  35  Ga.  124;  Kirtland  v.  Molton,  41  Ala.  548; 
Tarleton  v.  Southern  Bank,  41  Ala.  722;  Herbert  v.  Easton,  43  Ala. 
547;   Rutland  v.  Copes,  15  Eich.   S4. 

456  Lathrop  v.  Brown,  1  Woods,  474,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8108;  Walker 
v.  Whitehead,  16  Wall.  314,  21  L.  ed.  357;  Gardner  v.  Jeter,  49  Ga. 
195;  Griffiths  v.  Shipp,  49  Ga.  231;  Kimbro  v.  Bank,  49  Ga.  419; 
Dougherty  v.  Fogle,  50  Ga.  464. 

457  Bank  of  United  States  v.  Longworth,  1  McLean,  35;  Williams 
v.  Waldo,  4  111.  264;  Delahay  v.  McConnell,  5  111.  156;  Coriell  v.  Ham, 
4  G.  Greene,  455,  61  Am.  Dec.  134;  Carnes  v.  Eed  Eiver  Parish,  2y 
La.  Ann.  608. 

458  Mather  v.  Chapman,  6  Conn.  54. 

450  Bell  v.  Roberts,  13  Vt.  582;  Pratt  v.  Jones,  25  Vt.  303. 
460   Scott  v.  Duke,  3  La.  Ann.  253. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  438 

clause  of  the  constitution;  the  power  acts  upon  property,  not 
upon  contract.461  Neither  the  legislature  nor  the  people  them- 
selves can  bargain  away  the  power  to  regulate  the  public  health 
and  morals,462  or  legislative  discretion  concerning  such  regu- 
lation,463 and  the  power  is  inalienable  even  by  express  grant.464 
So  one  legislature  cannot  by  contract  restrain  the  power  of  a 
subsequent  legislature  to  legislate  for  the  public  welfare,  and 
to  that  end  to  suppress  any  and  all  practices  tending  to  cor- 
rupt the  public  morals  or  impair  the  public  health.465  The 
legislative  power  extends  only  to  irrevocable  grants  of  property 
and  franchises  which  do  not  impair  this  sovereign  right '  of 
police  regulation,466  but  while  this  power  cannot  be  abdicated, 
it  may  in  some  instances  be  delegated,  subject  always  to  the 
power  of  revocation.467 

The  police  power  comprehends  all  those  general  laws  of  in- 
ternal regulation  necessary  to  secure  peace,  good  order,  health, 
and  the  comfort  of  society,408  private  interests  being  subser- 

461  OsboTn  v.  Nicholson,  13  Wall.  660,  20  L.  ed.  689;  New  Orleans 
Gas  Co.  v.  Louisiana  Light  Co.,  115  U.  S.  672,  6  S.  Ct.  252,  29  L.  ed. 
516;  New  Orleans  Waterworks  v.  Rivers,  115  U.  S.  681,  6  S.  Ct.  273, 
29  L.  ed.  525. 

462  Boston  Beer  Co.  v.  Massachusetts,  97  U.  S.  25,  24  L.  ed.  989; 
New  Orleans  Gas  Co.  v.  Louisiana  Light  Co.,  115  U.  S.  650,  6  S.  Ct. 
252,  29  L.  ed.  516;  Birmingham  Mineral  etc.  Co.  v.  Parsons,  100  Ala. 
662,  46  Am.  St.  Bep.  92,  13  South.  662,  27  L.  E.  A.  263;  Chicago 
etc.  By.  Co.  v.  State,  47  Neb.  549,  66  N.  W.  624,  41  L.  E.  A.  48JL; 
Thorpe  v.  Rutland  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  27  Vt.  140,  62  Am.  Dee.  625. 

4  63  Stone  v.  Mississippi,  101  U.  S.  819,  25  L.  ed.  1079;  Boyd  v. 
Alabama,  94  U.  S.  645,  24  L.  ed.  302;  Butchers'  Union  Co.  v.  Crescent 
City  Co.,  Ill  TJ.  S.  751,  4  S.  Ct.  652,  28  L.  ed.  585. 

464  Boston  Beer  Co.  v.  Massachusetts,  97  IT.  S.  25,  24  L.  ed.  989; 
New  York  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Bristol,  151  U.  S.  567,  14  S.  Ct.  437,  38 
L.  ed.  269;  Holden  v.  Hardy,  169  TJ.  S.  392,  IS  S.  Ct.  383,  42  L.  ed. 
780. 

465  Boyd  v.  Alabama,  94  TJ.  S.  650,  24  L.  ed.  302;  Fertilizing  Co.  v. 
Hyde  Park,  97  TJ.  S.  670,  24  L.  ed.  1036. 

466  Stone  v.  Mississippi,  101  TJ.  S.  821,  2-5  L.  ed.  1079. 

467  Illinois  Cent.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Illinois,  146  TJ.  S.  453,  13  S.  Ct.  110, 
36  L.  ed.  1018. 

468  Slaughter-house  Cases,  16  Wall.  62,  21  L.  ed.  394;  Munn  v. 
Illinois,  94  TJ.  S.  125,  24  L.  ed.  77;  Boston  Beer  Co.  v.  Massachusetts, 
97  TJ.  S.  33,  24  L.  ed.  989;  Fertilizing  Co.  v.  Hyde  Park,  97  TJ.  8. 


439  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

vient  to  the  general  interests  of  the  community.469  The  pos- 
session and  enjoyment  of  all  rights  are  subject  to  such  reason- 
able conditions  as  may  be  deemed  by  the  governing  authority 
essential  to  the  safety,  health,  peace,  good  order  and  morals 
of  the  community,470  and  for  the  commonwealth  individuals 
must  suffer  the  destruction  of  property,  and  even  of  life, 
rights  of  necessity  being  part  of  the  law.471  The  legislature 
may  forbid  a  person  to  engage  in  a  dangerous  employment  ex- 
cept at  his  own  risk,472  or  it  may  prohibit  a  hazardous  or  per- 
nicious business,  although  it  thereby  affects  prior  contracts.473 
So  also  it  may  regulate  the  sale  of  naphtha  or  inflammable 
oils,474  and  a  subsequent  statute  may  forbid  the  transporta- 
tion of  dead  animals  under  a  charter  provision  permitting 
their  use  in  the  manufachire  of  fertilizers.475  A  statute  pro- 
hibiting lotteries  is  valid  although  intended  to  operate  on  a 
lottery  authorized  by  a  corporate  charter.476  The  legislature 
may  enact  laws  regulating  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath,477 
and  may  provide  a  remedy  against  nuisances.478 

669,  24  L.  ed.  1036;  Patterson  v.  Kentucky,  97  U.  S.  504,  24  L.  eel. 
1115;  Cotting  v.  Kansas  City  Stockyards  Co.,  183  U.  S.  84,  22  S.  Ct. 
30,  46  L.  ed.  92;  Ex  parte  Schrader,  33  Cal.  279;  Philadelphia  etc.  B. 
E.  Co.  v.  Bowers,  4  Houst.  506;  New  Orleans  Gaslight  Co.  v.  Hart, 
40  La.  Ann.  474,  8  Am.  St.  Eep.  544,  4  South.  215. 

469  Slaughter-house  Cases,  16  Wall.  62,  21  L.  ed.  394;  Common- 
wealth v.  Alger,  7  Cush.  53. 

470  Crowley  v.  Christensen,  137  U.  S.  89,  11  S.  Ct.  13,  34  L.  ed.  620. 

471  Bowditch  v.  Boston,  101  U.  S.  18,  25  L.  ed.  980. 

472  Kirby  v.  Pennsylvania  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  76  Pa.  St.  506. 

473  People  v.  Hawley,  3  Mich.  330. 

474  United  States  v.  Dewitt,  9  Wall.  41;  Patterson  v.  Kentucky, 
97  IT.  S.  503,  24  L.  ed.  1115,  affirming  11  Bush,  315,  21  Am.  Eep.  222. 

475  Fertilizing  Co.  v.  Hyde  Park,  97  TJ.  S.  669,  24  L.  ed.  1036,  af- 
firming 70  111.   634. 

476  Phalen  v.  Virginia,  8  How.  169,  12  L.  E.  A.  1030;  Boyd  v. 
Alabama,  94  IT.  S.  650,  24  L.  ed.  302;  Stone  v.  Mississippi,  101  TJ. 
S.  819,  25  L.  ed.  1079;  Douglas  v.  Kentucky,  168  U.  S.  498,  18  3. 
Ct.  199,  42  L.  ed.  553;  Moore  v.  State,  48  Miss.  147,  12  Am.  Eep.  367. 

477  People  v.  Havnor,  149  N.  Y.  195,  52  Am.  St.  Eep.  707,  43  N. 
E.  541,  31  L.  E.  A.  689;  Bohl  v.  State,  3  Tex.  App.  683;  People  v. 
Bellet,  99  Mich.  151,  41  Am.  St.  Eep.  589,  22  L.  E.  A.  286;  Vogel- 
song  v.  State,  9  Ind.  112;  Shaver  v.  State,  10  Ark.  259;  Specbt  v. 
Commonwealth,  8  Pa.  St.  312,  49  Am.  Dec.  518. 

47S  Fertilizing  Co.  v.  Hyde  Park,  97  U.  S.  669,  24  L.  ed.  1036. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  440 

Every  individual  holds  his  property  subject  to  such  police 
regulation  as  the  legislature  in  its  wisdom  may  enact  for  the 
general  welfare,479  and  it  is  the  province  of  the  legislature  to  de- 
termine the  exigency  calling  for  the  exercise  of  the  police 
power,  and  of  the  courts  to  decide  as  to  the  proper  subjects  of 
its  exercise.480  As  to  whether  a  purported  police  regulation 
is  wise  or  reasonable  the  courts  will  not  determine;481  the 
legislature  possesses  a  wide  discretion  in  this  respect.482  The 
mere  fact  of  pecuniary  injury  is  not  sufficient  to  warrant  the 
holding  of  a  police  regulation  invalid.483  A  state  may  regu- 
late the  carrying  on  of  business  within  its  limits,484  and  may 
impose  reasonable  police  regulations  for  the  protection  of  mar- 
kets against  the  sale  of  commodities  unfit  for  commerce,485 
or  may  regulate  the  sale  of  any  commodity  the  use  of  which 
would  be  detrimental  to  the  morals  of  the  people.486 

The  legislature  may  regulate  or  prohibit  the  sale  of  intoxi- 
cating liquors,487  and  the  regulation  or  prohibition  may  oper- 

479  Brown  v.  Keener,  74  N.  C.  714;  Pool  v.  Trexler,  76  N.  C.  297. 

480  Lawton  v.  Steele,  152  U.  S.  136,  14  S.  Ct.  499,  38  L.  ed.  385; 
Allgeyer  v.  Louisiana,  165  U.  S.  590,  17  S.  Ct.  427,  41  L.  ed.  832, 
Lake  View  v.  Kose  Hill  Cemetery,  70  111.  191,  22  Am.  Rep.  71;  Daniels 
v.  Hilgard,  77  111.  G40. 

4Si  Railroad  Co.  v.  Richmond,  96  XJ.  S.  528,  24  L.  ed.  734;  Patter- 
son v.  Kentucky,  97  U.  S.  504,  24  L.  ed  1115. 

4S2  Plessy  v.  Ferguson,  163  U.  S.  550,  16  S.  Ct.  1138,  41  L.  ed. 
256. 

483  L'Hote  v.  New  Orleans,  177  TJ.  S.  598,  20  S.  Ct.  788,  44  L.  ed. 
899. 

484  Higgins  v.  Rinker,  47  Tex.  381. 

485  State  v.  Fosdick,  21  La.  Ann.  256;  New  Haven  etc.  Co.  v. 
Bunnell,  4  Conn.  59;  .Fertilizing  Co.  v.  Hyde  Park,  97  U.  S.  669, 
24  L.  ed.  1036. 

486  State  v.  Gurney,  37  Me.  156,  58  Am.  Dec.  782. 

487  Pervear  v.  Commonwealth,  5  Wall.  479,  18  L.  ed.  608;  Barto- 
meyer  v.  Iowa,  18  Wall.  132,  21  L.  ed.  929;  Boston  Beer  Co.  v.  Massa- 
chusetts, 97  TJ.  S.  32,  24  L.  ed.  989;  Eilenbecker  v.  Plymouth  Co.,  134 
TJ.  S.  40,  10  S.  Ct.  424,  33  L.  ed.  801;  Giozza  v.  Tiernan,  148  U.  S. 
662,  13  S.  Ct.  723,  37  L.  ed.  599;  Jacobs  Pharmacy  Co.  v.  Atlanta, 
89  Fed.  246. 


441  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

ate  to  revoke  licenses  already  granted  and  not  yet  expired.4SS 
So  a  state  may  tax  the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors.489  The 
fact  that  the  federal  government  has  granted  a  license  to  sell 
liquor  does  not  authorize  any  violation  of  state  laws  nor  pre- 
clude prohibition  on  the  part  of  the  state.490  A  clause  in  the 
charter  of  an  educational  institution  forbidding  the  sale  of 
liquor  within  the  neighborhood  cannot  be  construed  as  a  grant 
of  a  power  or  privilege,  but  as  an  exercise  of  the  police  power, 
and  as  such  subject  to  repeal.491  A  statute  prohibiting  the 
sale  or  keeping  for  sale  of  liquors  previously  manufactured 
does  not  impair  any  contract  obligations  by  reason  of  the  fact 
that  it  lessens  the  value  of  liquors  already  owned.492  There  is 
no  inherent  right  in  a  citizen  to  sell  intoxicating  liquors,  nor  is 
it  a  privilege  of  United  States  citizenship.493  Since  the  Wilson 
Act  of  1890,  subjecting  imported  liquors  to  the  operation  of 
the  police  regulations  of  the  states,  there  can  be  no  objection 
to  a  prohibitory  law  on  the  ground  that  it  impairs  the  contract 
between  a  manufacturer  and  an  importer.494 

The  reasonable  regulation  of  a  business  or  trade  is  within 
the  police  power  of  the  states,495  and  such  regulation  may  ex- 
tend to  both  the  exercise  and  mode  of  exercise  of  the  business 
or  trade.496  So  the  regulation  of  the  business  of  mining  and 
the  prescribing  of  certain  precautions  to  secure  the  safety, 
health    and   comfort    of    laborers    is    a    valid    exercise    of    the 

4S8  Boston  Beer  Co.  v.  Massachusetts,  97  U.  S.  32,  24  L.  ed.  98fc>; 
Kresser  v.  Lyman,  74  Fed.  767;  Powell  v.  State,  69  Ala.  10;  HevTen 
v.  Beed,  126  Cal.  222,  58  Pac.  537;  Moore  v.  Indianapolis,  120  Tnd. 
492,  22  N.  E.  427;  Young  v.  Blaisdell,  138  Mass.  345. 

489  Gilman  v.  Philadelphia,  3  Wall.  730,  18  L.  ed.  96;  Sinclair  v. 
State,  69  N.  C.  47. 

490  McGuire  v.  Commonwealth,  3  Wall.  395,  18  L.  ed.  164;  Terri- 
tory v.  O'Connor,  5  Dak.  408,  41  N.  W.  751;  Commonwealth  v.  Casey, 
12  Allen,  222;  State  v.  Elder,  54  Me.  383;  State  v.  Lillard,  7S  Mo.  138. 

491  Dingman  v.  People,  51  111.  277. 

402  State  v.  Paul,  5  B.  I.  185.  And  see  Mugler  v.  Kansas,  123  U. 
S.  657,  8  S.  Ct.  273,  31  L.  ed.  205. 

403  Crowley  v.  Christensen,  137  U.  S.  91,  11  S.  Ct.  13,  34  <L.  ed.  620. 
4  94   Catini   v.   Tillman,   54   Fed.   969;    Minneapolis   Brewing   Co.   v. 

McGillivray,  10  Fed.  258. 

495   Soon  Hing  v.  Crowley,  113  U.  S.  708,  5  S.  Ct.  730,  28  L.  ed.  1145. 
49G  Gundling  v.  Chicago,  177  U.  S.  188,  20  S.  Ct.  633,  44  L.  ed.  725. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1     Obligation  of  Contracts.  442 

power;497  e.  g.,  an  act  regulating  the  hours  of  labor  in  mines 
and  smelters.498  The  legislature  may  also  prescribe  the  quali- 
fications of  professional  graduates.499 

In  the  use  of  its  property  and  the  transaction  of  its  business 
a  private  corporation  stands  upon  the  same  footing  as  an  in- 
dividual.500 Corporations  are  legislative  creatures,  with  lim- 
ited citizenship,  and  subject  to  legislation  protecting  public 
health  and  morality.501  In  granting  corporate  franchises  a 
state  reserves  the  right  to  enact  police  regulations  for  the  pro- 
tection of  life  and  property.502 

The  imposition  of  duties  and  obligations  in  a  corporate 
charter  does  not  prevent  the  legislature  from  imposing  further 
duties  for  the  safety  of  persons  and  property,503  and  statu- 
tory authority  given  to  a  corporation  to  engage  in  a  particular 
private  business  detrimental  to  public  health  or  morals  does 
not  constitute  a  contract  preventing  its  withdrawal.504  Pro- 
visions for  penalties  and  forfeitures  in  a  charter  are  not  mere 
matters  of  contract.505  When  applied  to  corporations,  how- 
ever, the  police  power  is  subject  to  constitutional  limitations,506 

497  St.  Louis  Con.  Coal  Co.  v.  Illinois,  185  U.  S.  207,  22  S.  Ct.  615, 
46  L.  ed.  872;  Daniels  v.  Hilgard,  77  111.  640;  Dingman  v.  People,  51 
111.  277. 

498  Holden  v.  Hardy,  169  U.  S.  395,  18-  S.  Ct.  383,  42  L.  ed.  780. 

499  Eegents  v.  Williams,  9  Gill  &  J.  365,  31  Am.  Dec.  72;  State 
V.  Heyward,  3  Eieh.  389;  Logan  v.  State,  5  Tex.  App.  306. 

500  Kichmond  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Richmond,  26  Gratt.  83. 

501  Stone  v.  Mississippi,  101  U.  S.  S20,  25  L.  ed.  1079. 

502  Sloan  v.  Pacific  E.  E.  Co.,  61  Mo.  24,  21  Am.  Eep.  397;  Ben- 
son v.  New  York,  10  Barb.  223;  Lake  Shore  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Cin- 
cinnati etc.  E.  R.  Co.,  30  Ohio  St.  604;  Galena  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v. 
Loomis,  13  111.  548,  56  Am.  Dec.  471;  Platte  etc.  Co.  v.  Dowell,  17 
Colo.  376,  30  Pac.  68. 

503  Minneapolis  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Emmons,  149  U.  S.  368,  13  S.  Ct. 
870,  37  L.  ed.  769;  Kilpatrick  v.  Grand  Trunk  By.  Co.,  74  Vt.  2SS, 
93  Am.  St.  Eep.  887,  52  Atl.  531. 

504  New  Orleans  Gaslight  Co.  v.  Louisiana  Light  Co.,  115  U.  S. 
669,  6  S.  Ct.  252,  29  L.  ed.  516. 

505  Maryland  v.  Baltimore  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  3  How.  552,  11  L.  ed. 
714. 

506  Lake   View   v.   Rose   Hill   Cemetery,   70   111.   191,  22   Am.   Rep. 


443  Obligation  of  Contracts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  1 

and  to  be  valid  they  must  be  in  fact  regulations  calculated  to 
preserve  the  public  health,  morals  or  safety.507 

Congress  cannot  interfere  with  the  power  of  the  states  to 
enact  police  regulations,  nor  legislate  on  the  internal  police 
of  the  states.508 

71;  State  v.  Fosdick,  21  La.  Ann.  256;  Connolly  v.  Union  Sewer  Pipe 
Co.,  184  U.  S.  558,  22  S.  Ct.  431,  46  L.  ed.  679. 

507  New  Orleans  Gas  Co.  v.  Louisiana  Light  Co.,  115  TL  S.  669, 
6  S.  Ct.  252,  29  L.  ed.  516;  Gulf  etc.  Ey.  Co.  v.  Ellis,  165  U.  S.  158, 
17  S.  Ct.  255,  41  L.  ed.  666. 

508  Gibbons  v.  Ogden,  9  Wheat.  204-209,  6  L.  ed.  23;  United  States 
v.  Dewitt,  9  Wall.  44,  19  L.  ed.  593;  Slaughter-house  Cases,  16  Wall. 
63,  21  L.  ed.  394;  Eailroad"  Co.  v.  Fuller,  17  Wall.  560,  21  L.  ed.  710; 
United  States  v.  Boyer,  85  Fed.  434;  Patterson  v.  Kentucky,  97  U. 
S.  504,  24  L.  ed.  1115,  affirming  11  Bush,  315,  21  Am.  Eep.  222;  West- 
ern Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Pendleton,  95  Ind.  16,  48  Am.  Eep.  696;  Phelps 
v.  Eacey,  60  N.  Y.  15,  19  Am.  Eep.  144. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  2       Imposts  and  Duties.  444 

2.  No  State  shall,  without  the  consent  of  the  Congress, 
lay  any  imposts  or  duties  on  imports  or  exports,  except 
what  may  be  absolutely  necessary  for  executing  its  in- 
spection laws;  and  the  net  produce  of  all  duties  and  im- 
posts, laid  by  any  State  on  imports  or  exports,  shall  be 
for  the  use  of  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States;  and 
all  such  laws  shall  be  subject  to  the  revision  and  con- 
trol of  the  Congress. 

Imports  and  Exports. 

"Imports,"  within  the  constitutional  prohihition  upon  the 
states  against  taxing  imports,  means  goods  from  a  foreign 
country.1  The  prohibition  does  not  embrace  goods  brought 
from  other  states,  and  a  tax  upon  such  goods  is  not  invali- 
dated by  this  clause.2  The  term  "imports"  being  applied  to 
articles  brought  from  foreign  countries,  e  converso  the  term 
"exports"  is  applicable,  under  this  clause,  only  to  goods  sent 
to  foreign  countries.3 

When  an  importer  has  so  acted  upon  the  thing  imported  that 
it  has  become  incorporated  and  mixed  up  with  the  mass  of 
property  in  the  country,  it  has  lost  its   distinctive  character 

1  Brown  v.  Maryland,  12  Wheat.  437,  6  L.  ed.  678;  License  Cases, 
5  How.  594,  12  L.  ed.  256;  Woodruff  v.  Parham,  8  Wall.  131,  19  L. 
ed.  382;  Hinson  v.  Lott,  8  Wall.  148,  19  L.  ed.  387;  Case  of  State  Freigt.r, 
Tax,  15  Wall.  232,  21  L.  ed.  146;  Guy  v.  Baltimore,  100  U.  S.  434,  25 
L.  ed.  743;  Brown  v.  Houston,  114  U.  S.  628,  5  S.  Ct.  1094,  29  L.  ed.  257. 
affirming  33  La.  Ann.  845,  39  Am.  Rep.  286;  Pittsburgh  Coal  Co.  v. 
Bates,  156  LT.  S.  587,  15  S.  Ct.  415,  39  L.  ed.  538;  Pittsburgh  etc.  Coal 
Go.  v.  Louisiana,  156  U.  S.  600,  15  S.  Gt.  459,  39  L.  ed.  544;  In  re 
Rudolph,  6  Saw.  295,  2  Fed.  65;  State  v.  Pinckney,  10  Rich.  47  i; 
State  v.  Charleston,  10  Bich.  240;  Harrison  v.  Mayor,  3  Smedes  <fc 
M.  581,  41  Am.  Dec.  633;  People  v.  Walling,  53  Mich.  270,  IS  N.  W. 
811;  Board  v.  Pleasants,  23  La.  Ann.  349. 

2  Woodruff  v.  Parham,  8  Wall.  140,  19  L.  ed.  3S2;  Hinson  v.  Lott, 
S  Wall.  148,  19  L.  ed.  387;  People  v.  Walling,  53  Mich.  270,  18  N. 
W.  811. 

3  Patapsco  Guano  Co.  v.  North  Carolina,  171  IT.  S.  350,  18  S.  Ct. 
862,  43  L.  ed.  191;  Dooley  v.  United  States,  182  U.  S.  222,  22  S. 
Ct,  64,  45  L.  ed.  1074;  Clarke  v.  Clarke,  3  Woods,  410,  Fed.  Gas.  No. 
2846;  Nelson  v.  Loraine,  22  Fed.  57. 


445  Imposts  and  Duties.        Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  2 

as  an  import  ;4  but  so  long  as  goods  remain  the  property  of 
the  importer  in  the  original  form  or  package  in  which  imported 
a  tax  upon  them  is  a  duty  upon  imports,  and  so  unconstitu- 
tional.5 Goods  in  the  lower  harbor  of  Mobile,  bought  so  as 
to  remain  at  the  risk  of  the  vendor  and  being  entered  and 
the  duty  secured  before  transshipment,  are  imported  before  pur- 
chase, and  a  tax  upon  the  purchaser  is  not  a  tax  on  imports;6 
but  a  statute  taxing  imports  as  imports  on  their  way  to  become 
incorporated  with  the  general  mass  of  property  is  unconstitu- 
tional.7 So  with  exports;  goods  collected  at  the  entrepot  are 
not  yet  exports  nor  in  process  of  exportation;  exportation  does 
not  begin  until  goods  are  committed  to  a  carrier  for  transpor- 
tation or  have  started  on  their  ultimate  passage  to  their  des- 
tination.8 

A  general  state  tax  on  all  property  alike  does  not  become  a 
duty  on  exports  because  some  of  the  property  is  thereafter  ex- 

4  Brown  v.  Maryland,  12  Wheat.  441,  6  L.  ed.  678;  License  Cases, 
5  How.  589,  12  L.  ed.  256;  State  Tax  on  Eailway  Gross  Eeceipts,  15 
Wall.  295,  21  L.  ed.  146;  Low  v.  Austin,  13  Wall.  33,  20  L.  ed.  517; 
Brown  v.  Houston,  114  U.  S.  634.  5  S.  Ct.  1094,  29  L.  ed.  257;  May 
v.  New  Orleans,  178  U.  S.  507,  20  S.  Ct.  976,  44  L.  ed.  1165;  Ex  parte 
Brown,  48  Fed.  436;  United  States  v.  Hopkins,  S2  Fed.  541;  Padel- 
ford  v.  Savannah,  14  Ga.  442;  City  of  South  Bend  v.  Martin,  142 
Ind.  42,  41  N.  E.  318,  29  L.  B.  A.  531;  McGregor  v.  Cone,  104  Iowa, 
469,  65  Am.  St.  Eep.  525,  73  N.  W.  1043,  39  L.  E.  A.  484;  Myers  v. 
Baltimore  County,  83  Md.  389,  55  Am.  St.  Eep.  352,  35  Atl.  145,  34 
L.  E.  A.  309;  Harrison  v.  Mayor,  3  Smedes  &  M.  586,  41  Am.  Dec. 
635;  Territory  v.  Farnsworth,  5  Mont.  317,  5  Pac.  874;  Ex  parte  Asher, 
23  Tex.  App.  674,  5  S.  W.  97. 

5  Brown  v.  Maryland,  12  Wheat.  442,  6  L.  ed.  678;  Low  v.  Austin, 
13  Wall.  34,  20  L.  ed.  517;  Coe  v.  Errol,  110  U.  S.  527,  6  S.  Ct.  475, 
29  L.  ed.  715;  May  v.  New  Orleans,  178  U.  S.  507,  20  S.  Ct.  976,  44 
L.  ed.  1165;  Austin  v.  Tennessee,  179  U.  S.  355,  21  S.  Ct.  132,  45  L. 
ed.  224;  Leisy  v.  Hardin,  135  U.  S.  10S,  10  S.  Ct.  683,  34  L.  ed.  12S; 
Tuchman  v.  Welch,  42  Fed.  555;  Wynn  v.  Wright,  4  Dev.  &  B.  19; 
State  v.  Charleston,  10  Eich.  210;  State  v.  Shapleigh,  27  Mo.  461; 
State  ex  rel.  v.  Assessors,  46  La.  Ann.  146,  49  Am.  St.  Eep.  319,  15 
South.  11;  State  v.  Burns,  82  Md.  568,  19  Atl.  914;  State  v.  Pratt,  59 
Vt.  592,  9  Atl.  558. 

6  Waring  v.  Mayor,  8  Wall.   118.  19  L.   ed.   342. 

7  Emert  v.  Missouri,  156  IT.  S.  313,  15  S.  Ct.  367,  39  L.  ed.  430. 
s  Coe  v.  Errol,  116  U.  S.  525,  6  S.  Ct.  475,  29  L.  ed.  715. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  2      Imposts  and  Duties.  446 

ported;  hence  a  tax  upon  coal  on  towboats  offered  for  sale 
generally  does  not  become  an  export  tax  by  reason  of  the  fact 
that  it  is  bought  for  export.9  Nor  can  the  mere  intention  to 
export  goods  exempt  them  from  a  state  tax.10  Capital  which 
is  in  money  on  the  day  of  assessment,  although  used  in  export- 
ing goods  from  the  United  States,  is  taxable  by  a  state,  and  a 
tax  thereon  is  in  no  sense  a  tax  on  exports.11  But  goods  al- 
ready inspected  under  a  state  law  and  delivered  for  export  are 
exports,  and  not  taxable.12 

The  terms  "imports/'  "exports"  and  "inspection  laws,"  as 
here  used,  have  exclusive  reference  to  property  and  not  to  per- 
sons.13 So  a  tax  on  every  person  leaving  a  state  by  means  of 
a  common  carrier,  however  invalid  on  other  grounds,  cannot 
be  declared  void  as  a  tax  on  exports.14  On  the  other  hand,  a 
tax  on  foreign  immigrants  cannot  be  upheld  as  an  inspection 
charge  authorized  by  this  clause,  and  such  a  tax  is  void.15  A 
corpse  is  not  property,  hence  a  charge  for  the  removal  of  dead 
bodies  is  not  an  export  tax.16  A  state  law  imposing  a  transit 
duty  for  persons  or  goods  transported  in  the  state  is  not  a  tax 
on  imports  or  exports.17 

Porto  Eico  and  the  United  States  were  foreign  countries 
with  respect  to  each  other  while  the  island  was  occupied  by  the 
United  States  military  forces  before  cession  to  the  United 
States  by  treaty.18 

9  Brown  v.  Houston,  114  U.  S.  629,  630,  5  S.  Ct.  1094,  29  L.  ed. 
257. 

10  Nelson  v.  Loraine,  22  Fed.  57. 

11  People  v.  Commissioners,  104  U.  S.  468,  26  L.  ed.  632. 

12  Clarke  v.  Clarke,  3  Woods,  410. 

13  People  v.  Compagnie  Generale  etc.,  107  U.  S.  61,  2  S.  Ct.  87, 
27  L.  ed.  383,  affirming  20  Blatchf.  304,  10  Fed.  362. 

14  Crandall  v.  Nevada,  6  Wall.  39,  18  L.  ed.  745. 

15  People  v.  Compagnie  Generale  etc.,  107  U.  S.  61,  2  S.  Ct.  87, 
27  L.  ed.  383;  People  v.  Pacific  Mail  S.  S.  Co.,  8  Saw.  640. 

16  In  re  Wong  Yung  Quy,  6  Saw.  442. 

17  State  v.  Delaware  etc.  R.  E.  Co.,  31  N.  J.  L.  531. 

is  Dooley  v.  United  States,  182  U.  S.  222,  22  S.  Ct.  64,  45  L.  ed. 
1074. 


447  Imposts  and  Duties.       Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  2 
Imposts  or  Duties. 


An  "impost"  is  a  custom,  or  tax,  levied  on  articles  brought 
into  the  county ;  it  is  not  merely  a  duty  on  the  act  of  importa- 
tion, but  a  duty  on  the  thing  imported;19  it  is  a  duty  on  im- 
ported goods  and  merchandise.20 

"Duties"  are  denned  to  be  things  due  and  recoverable  by 
law.  Applied  in  its  widest  signification,  the  term  is  hardly  less 
comprehensive  than  "taxes,"  and  in  its  most  restricted  mean- 
ing as  to  customs  it  is  almost  the  synonym  of  "imposts."21 
The  prohibition  contained  in  this  clause  is  a  limitation  on  the 
power  of  the  states  to  levy  taxes.22 

The  object  of  the  prohibition  is  to  protect  both  vessel  and 
cargo  from  state  taxation  while  in  transitu,  and  it  cannot  be 
evaded  and  the  same  result  effected  by  calling  the  tax  one  on 
the  passengers  or  on  the  master;23  the  purpose  and  validity 
of  the  statute  must  be  determined  by  its  natural  and  reason- 
able effect.24  The  prohibition  is  general,  and  reaches  a  tax 
on  the  sale  of  the  article  imported  and  on  the  occupation  of 
the  importer.25 

19  Brown  v.  Maryland,  12  "Wheat.  419,  6  L.  ed.  678;  Hinson  v. 
Lott,  8  Wall.  148,  19  L.  ed.  387;  Gase  of  State  Freight  Tax,  15  Wall. 
232,  21  L.  ed.  146;  Bode  v.  State,  7  Gill,  326;  State  v.  Sluby,  2  Har. 

6  J.   480;   Wynne   v.  Wright,  4  Dev.   &  B.   19;   Sheffield  v.  Parsons, 
3  Stew.  &  P.  302. 

20  Pacific  Ins.  Co.  v.  Soule,  7  Wall.  445,  19  L.  ed.  95;  Hancock  v. 
Singer  etc.  Co.,  62  N.  J.  L.  334,  41  Atl.  849,  43  L.  E.  A.  852. 

21  Pacific  Ins.  Co.  v.  Soule,  7  Wail.  445,  19  L.  ed.  95. 

22  Gibbons  v.  Ogden,  9  Wheat.  201,  6  L.  ed.  23;  Passenger  Cases, 

7  How.  501,  12  L.  ed.  702;  Hamilton  Co.  v.  Massachusetts,  6  Wall. 
639,  18  L.  ed.  904. 

23  Passenger  Cases,  7  How.  501,  502,  549,  12  L.  ed.  702;  Crandall 
v.  Nevada,  6  Wall.  40,  18  L.  ed.  745;  People  v.  Compagnie  Generale 
etc.,  107  U.  S.  60,  2  S.  Ct.  88,  27  L.  ed.  383,  affirming  20  Blatchf.  300, 
10  Fed.  360;  People  v.  Downer,  7  Cal.  169;  Webb  v.  Dunn,  18  Fla. 
724. 

24  Henderson  v.  New  York,  92  TJ.  S.  269,  23  L.  ed.  543. 

25  Brown  v.  Maryland,  12  Wheat.  442,  6  L.  ed.  678;  Cook  v.  Penn- 
sylvania, 97  U.  S.  573,  24  L.  ed.  1015;  License  Cases,  5  How.  504, 
12  L.  ed.  256;  Walling  v.  Michigan,  116  U.  S.  460,  6  S.  Ct.  460,  29  L. 
ed.  691;  State  v.  North,  27  Mo.  464;  Biddle  v.  Commonwealth,  .13 
Sere.  &  E.  405;  State  v.  Kennedy,  19  La.  Ann.  426,  427. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  2      Imposts  and  Duties.  448 

Sale  is  the  object  of  importation  and  is  an  essential  ingredi- 
ent of  that  intercourse  of  which  importation  constitutes  a 
part/6  and  by  the  payment  of  duty_  the  importer  purchases 
the  right  to  dispose  of  his  goods  as  well  as  to  bring  them  into 
the  country.27  The  payment  of  duties  includes  the  authority 
to  sell  without  the  necessity  of  a  state  license;  so  a  state  law 
requiring  importers  to  take  out  a  license  to  sell  imported  goods 
is  an  indirect  tax  upon  imports.28  A  tax  on  sales  of  imported 
merchandise  in  original  packages  by  brokers  and  auctioneers 
is  unconstitutional;29  but  a  tax  on  the  gross  sales  of  a  pur- 
chaser from  the  importer  is  not  a  tax  on  imports/''"  A  tax 
on  such  sales  is  a  tax  on  the  proceeds,  and  not  on  the  im- 
ports.31 

A  tax  on  bills  of  lading  of  foreign  articles  is  a  tax  on  im- 
ports, and  void.32  A  stamp  tax  on  a  foreign  bill  of  exchange 
drawn  in  the  state  is  not  an  impost  or  tax  on  exports;33  but 
a  law  requiring  a  stamp  to  be  affixed  to  every  bill  of  lading  for 

26  Brown  v.  Maryland,  12  Wheat.  447,  6  L.  ed.  678. 

27  Brown  v.  Maryland,  12  Wheat.  447,  6  L.  ed.  678;  Hinson  v.  Lott, 
8  Wall.  152,  19  L.  ed.  387. 

28  Gibbons  v.  Ogden,  9  Wheat.  212,  6  L.  ed.  23;  Brown  v.  Mary- 
land, 12  Wheat.  447,  6  L.  ed.  67S;  License  Cases,  5  How.  504,  12  L. 
ed.  256;  Waring  v.  Mayor,  8  Wall.  119,  19  L.  ed.  342.  And  see  Per- 
vear  v.  Commonwealth,  5  Wall.  478,  18  L.  ed.  608. 

29  Low  v.  Austin,  13  Wall.  33,  20  L.  ed.  517;  Cook  v.  Pennsylvania, 
97  XL  S.  573,  24  L.  ed.  1015;  Bowman  v.  Chicago  etc.  B.  E.  Co.,  125 
U.  S.  494,  S  S.  Ct.  703,  31  L.  ed.  700;  Hynes  v.  Briggs,  41  Fed.  470; 
In  re  Minor,  69  Fed.  325;  People  v.  Moring,  47  Barb.  642;  Gelpi  r. 
Treasurer,  48  La.  Ann.  1537,  21  South.  116;  State  v.  Board  of  As- 
sessors,  46  La.  Ann.  146,  49  Am.  St.  Rep.  319,  15  South.  11. 

30  Waring  v.  Mayor,  8  Wall.  122,  19  L.  ed.  342;  Schollenberger  v. 
Pennsylvania,  171  U.  S.  24,  18  S.  Ct.  766,  43  L.  ed.  57;  Standard 
Oil  Co.  v.  Combs,  96  Ind.  184,  49  Am.  Rep.  160;  Brown  v.  Houston-, 
33  La.  Ann.  845,  39  Am.  Rep.  286;  People  v.  Roberts,  15S  N.  Y.  166, 
52  N.  E.  1103. 

31  State  v.  Pinckney,  IS  Rich.  474.  And  see  Wintz  v.  Girardey, 
3]   La.  Ann.   386. 

32  Almy  v.  California,  24  How.  174,  175,  16  L.  ed.  644;  Brumirragim 
v.  Tillinghast,  18  Cal.  265,  79  Am.  Dec.  178;  Erie  Ry.  Co.  v.  Stat", 
31  N.  J.  L.  541,  86  Am.  Dec.  235. 

33  Ex  parte  Martin,  7  Nev.  140,  8  Am.  Rep.  707. 


•±•±9  Inspection  Taxes.         Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  2 

gold-dust  exported,  is  in  substance  a  duty  on  the  article  ex- 
ported, and  is  unconstitutional.34  Where,  however,  the  require- 
ment that  an  article  intended  for  export  shall  be  stamped 
merely  provides  a  mode  for  denoting  such  intention,  it  cannot 
be  said  to  impose  a  duty  on  exports.35  State  pilot  laws  are  not 
embraced  in  the  words  "imposts  or  duties  on  imports."36  A 
tax  or  toll  imposed  on  lumber  floated  down  a  river  running 
through  a  state  into  another  is  void.37 

Inspection  Taxes. 

A  tax  levied  to  cover  the  expenses  of  inspection  is  an  excep- 
tion to  the  constitutional  prohibition  on  the  states  to  lay  du- 
ties on  imports  or  exports.38  The  collection  of  the  amount 
necessary  to  execute  state  inspection  laws  is  expressly  author- 
ized by  this  clause,39  and  when  the  right  of  inspection  is  prop- 
erly exercised,  it  applies  to  imports  as  well  as  exports.40  The 
object  of  state  inspection  laws  is  to  improve  the  quality  of 
articles  produced  and  fit  them  for  articles  of  commerce,41  and 
they  are  upheld  as  necessary  to  promote  the  interests  of  com- 
merce.42 So  far  as  such  laws  operate  on  articles  for  export 
they  are  generally  executed  on  land  before  the  articles  are  put 
on  board;  and  so  far  as  they  operate  on  imports  they  are  gen- 

34  Almy  v.  California,  24  How.  174,  175.  16  L.  ed.  644;  Beading 
E.  E.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  15  Wall.  2S0,  21  L.  ed.  146.  And  see 
People  v.  Baymond,  34  Cal.  498. 

35  Pace  v.  Burgess,  92  U.  S.  372,  23  L.  ed.  657;  Turpin  v.  Burgess, 
117  U.  S.  505,  6  S.  Ct.  835,  29  L.  ed.  988;  Burwell  v.  Burgess,  32  Gratt. 
478. 

36  Cooley  v.  Port  Wardens,  12  How.  299,  13  L.  ed.  996;  Baker  v. 
Wise,  16  Gratt.  139. 

37  Carson  Eiver  Lumbering  Co.  v.  Patterson,  33  Cal.  334. 

38  Brown  v.  Maryland,  12  Wheat.  43S,  6  L.  ed.  678;  Turner  *-. 
Maryland,  107  U.  S.  57,  2  S.  Ct.  61,  27  L.  ed.  370. 

39  Patapsco  Guano  Co.  v.  North  Carolina,  171  U.  S.  354,  18  S.  Ct. 
862,  43  L.  ed.  191. 

40  Neilson  v.  Garza,  2  Woods,  2S7. 

41  Gibbons  v.  Ogden,  9  Wheat.  203,  6  L.  ed.  23;  Patapsco  Guano 
Co.  v.  North  Carolina,  171  II.  S.  357,  18  S.  Ct.  862,  43  L.  ed.  191. 

42  State  Tonnage  Tax  Cases,  12  Wall.  204,  20  L.  ed.  370. 

Notes  on  Constitution — 29 


Art.  1,  §  10,  CI.  2,         Inspection  Taxes.  450 

erally  executed  on  articles  already  landed.43  So  an  inspection 
law  may  require  every  hogshead  of  tobacco  intended  for  export 
to  be  brought  to  a  state  warehouse  to  be  inspected  and  branded, 
and  to  pay  charges  for  storage  and  inspection.44  A  state  law- 
providing  for  the  inspection  of  imported  liquors,  to  be  valid, 
must  not  substantially  hamper  the  constitutional  right  to  make 
or  receive  shipments.45  A  state  law  providing  for  a  gauger 
at  a  port  of  delivery  is  not  unconstitutional.46  This  exception 
in  favor  of  inspection  charges  applies  only  to  the  inspection  of 
property  and  cannot  apply  to  persons.47  Where  a  duty  pur- 
ports to  be  an  inspection  tax,  the  question  whether  it  is  ex- 
cessive is  for  Congress  to  determine.48  But  the  fact  that  the 
tax  levied  is  more  than  sufficient  to  cover  the  cost  of  inspec- 
tion cannot  determine  its  validity.49 

The  provision  that  the  net  produce  shall  be  for  the  use  of 
the  treasury  of  the  United  States  applies  only  to  taxes  imposed 
for  inspection  purposes.50  The  states'  power  to  pass  inspection 
laws  is  subject  to  the  control  and  revision  of  Congress.51  The 
consent  of  Congress  need  not  be  given  in  advance,  but  may  be 
implied  from  legislation.52  The  power  to  enact  inspection 
laws  includes  the  power  to  enforce  them,  and  fees  for  the  com- 
pensation of  officers  are  not  imposts.53 

43  B.rown  v.  Maryland,  12  Wheat.  438,  6  L.  ed.  678. 

44  Turner  v.  Maryland,  107  U.  S.  55,  2  S.  Ct.  61,  27  L.  ed.  370. 

45  Vance  v.  W.  A.  Vandercook  Co.,  170  IT.  S.  456,  18  S.  Ct.  674, 
42  L.  ed.  1100  j  Pabst  Brewing  Co.  v.  Crenshaw,  120  Fed.  144. 

46  Addison  v.   Saulnier,  19   Cal.   82. 

47  People  v.  Compagnie  Generale  etc.,  107  TJ.  S.  59,  2  S.  Ct.  87, 
27  L.  ed.  383. 

4S  Neilson  v.  Garza,  2  Woods,  290.  And  see  Turner  v.  Maryland, 
107  U.  S.  55,  2  S.  Ct.  61,  27  L.  ed.  370. 

49  Pabst  Brewing  Co.  v.  Creushaw,  120  Fed.  144. 

50  Padelford  v.  Mayor,  14  Ga.  438. 

51  Gibbons  v.  Ogden,  9  Wheat.  201,  6  L.  ed.  23;  Brown  v.  Mary- 
land, 12  Wheat.  438,  6  L.  ed.  678;  State  Tonnage  Tax  Cases,  12  Wall. 
204,  20  L.  ed.  370;  Bailroad  Co.  v.  Peniston,  3  Stew.  &  P.  302. 

52  Green  v.  Biddle,  8  Wheat.  8,  5  L.  ed.  547;  Virginia  v.  West 
Virginia,  11  Wall.  60,  20  L.  ed.  67;  Martin  v.  Baltimore  etc.  E.  E. 
Co.,  151  U.  S.  680,  14  S.  Ct.  536,  38  L.  ed.  311;  Wharton  v.  Wise,  153 
U.  S.  173,  14  S.  Ct.  788,  38  L.  ed.  669. 

53  Addison   v.   Saulnier,   19   Cal.   82. 


451  Toxxage  Duties.  Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  3 

3.  No  State  shall,  without  the  consent  of  Congress, 
lay  any  duty  of  tonnage,  keep  troops,  or  ships  of  war  in 
time  of  peace,  enter  into  any  agreement  or  compact  with 
another  State,  or  with  a  foreign  power,  or  engage  in 
war,  unless  actually  invaded,  or  in  such  imminent  dan- 
ger as  will  not  admit  of  delay. 

Tonnage  Duties. 

A  tonnage  duty  is  a  charge  on  a  vessel  according  to  its 
capacity.1  The  object  of  this  prohibition  was  to  protect  the 
freedom  of  commerce,  and  it  should  be  so  construed.2  Ton- 
nage is  a  vessel's  internal  cubical  capacity  estimated  in  tons, 
and  the  characteristic  of  a  tonnage  duty  is  the  fact  that  it  is 
imposed  according  to  the  rule  of  weight.3 

The  prohibition  in  this  clause  is  general,  withdrawing  the 
power  from  the  states  except  by  the  consent  of  Congress.4 
The  power  to  levy  tonnage  duties  resides  solely  in  Congress, 
and  its  consent  is  necessary  to  the  exercise  of  any  such  power 
by  the  states;5  but  this  consent  need  not  be  given  in  advance 
and  may  be  implied  by  the  adoption  or  approval  of  acts  al- 
ready done.0 

"Duty"  means  a  custom  or  toll,Ca  and  as  here  used  is  not 

i  Inman  Steamship  Co.  v.  Tinker,  94  U.  S.  245,  24  L.  ed.  IIS; 
Huse  v.  Glover,  119  U.  S.  543,  7  S.  Ct.  313,  30  L.  ed.  487;  Webb  v. 
Dunn,  18  Fla.  727;  South  Carolina  v.  Charleston,  4  Eich.  289. 

2  Pittsburgh  etc.  Coal  Co.  v.  Louisiana,  156  U.  S.  600,  15  S.  Ct. 
459,  39  L.  ed.  544. 

3  Inman  Steamship  Co.  v.  Tinker,  94  IT.  S.  238,  24  L.  ed.  118; 
The  North  Cape,  6  Biss.  505. 

4  State  Tonnage  Tax  Cases,  12  Wall.  214,  20  L.  ed.  370;  Ward  v. 
Maryland,  12  Wall.  427,  20  L.  ed.  449;  People  v.  Eensselaer  etc.  B. 
E.  Co.,  15  Wend.  131,  30  Am.  Dec.  33;  Steamboat  Co.  v.  Livingston, 
3  Cow.  743;  Sheffield  v.  Parsons,  3  Stew.  &  P.  302. 

5  Gibbons  v.  Ogden,  9  Wheat.  201,  6  L.  ed.  23. 

6  Green  v.  Biddle,  8  Wheat.  87,  5  L.  ed.  547;  Virginia  v.  West 
Virginia,  11  Wall.  60,  20  L.  ed.  67;  Martin  v.  Baltimore  etc.  E.  B. 
Co.,  151  TJ.  S.  6S0,  14  S.  Ct.  536,  38  L.  ed.  311;  Wharton  v.  Wise,  153 
TJ.  S.  173,  14  S.  Ct.  788,  38  L.  ed.  669. 

6a  Sheffield  v.  Parsons,  3  Stew.  &  P.  302. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  3  Tonnage  Duties.  452 

less  comprehensive  than  the  broad  term  "tax,"7  and  any  duty, 
whether  a  fixed  sum  upon  the  whole  tonnage  of  a  vessel  or  to 
be  ascertained  by  comparing  tonnage  with  rate  of  duty,  comes 
within  the  prohibition.8  So  a  tax  on  the  master  or  cargo,  or 
on  some  privilege  to  be  enjoyed  by  the  vessel,  as  of  engaging 
in  a  particular  trade,  if  really  and  substantially  a  duty  on 
tonnage,  is  unconstitutional;  e.  g.,  a  license  fee  imposed  on 
the  master  of  an  oyster  boat  according  to  the  tonnage  of  his 
boat.9  And  this  protection  extends  to  all  vessels  employed  in 
the  coasting  trade,  whether  in  commercial  intercourse  between 
ports  of  different  states  or  ports,  of  the  same  state.10  Thus,  a 
tax  on  ships  entering  a  port  is  void,11  as  also  is  a  tax  upon 
vessels  plying  state  waters.12  A  statute  laying  a  tonnage  duty 
on  vessels  employed  as  lighters  to  assist  vessels  employed  in 
foreign  commerce  is  void.13 

The  fact  that  the  proceeds  of  the  tax  do  not  go  into  the 
public  treasury  does  not  affect  its  character  as  a  duty  on  ton- 
nage,14 nor  can  a  tax  which  is  essentially  a  duty  on  tonnage 
be  upheld  as  a  tax  on  property.15  But  a  tax  which  is  imposed 
upon  vessels  owned  in  the  state  like  any  other  property  is 
valid.1.6     A  tax  levied  on  a  vessel  as  property  in  the  state  at 

I  Pacific  Ins.  Co.  v.  Soule,  7  Wall.  445,  19  L.  ed.  95. 

s  Southern  Steamship  Co.  v.  Port  Wardens,  6  Wall.  35,  18  L.  ed. 
749;  Johnson  v.  Drummond,  20  Gratt.  419. 

9  Johnson  v.  Drummond,  20  Gratt.  419. 

10  State  Tonnage  Tax  Cases,  12  Wall.  218,  20  L.  ed.  370;  Lott  v. 
Morgan,  41  Ala.  246. 

II  Cannon  v.  New  Orleans,  20  Wall.  581,  22  L.  ed.  417;  Inman 
Steamship  Co.  v.  Tinker,  94  U.  S.  244,  24  L.  ed.  118;  St.  Louis  v. 
Schulenburg  etc.  Co.,  13  Mo.  App.  60;  N.  W.  U.  P.  Co.  v.  St.  Paul, 
3  Dill.  454. 

12  Lott  v.  Mobile  Trade  Co.,  42  Ala.  578;  Lott  v.  Cox,  43  Ala.  697. 

13  Lott  v.  Morgan,  41  Ala.  246. 

14  Sheffield  v.  Parsons,  3  Stew.  &  P.  302;  Alexander  v.  Eailroad 
Co.,  3  Strob.  594. 

15  State  Tonnage  Tax  Cases,  12  Wall.  218,  20  L.  ed.  370. 

16  Transportation  Co.  v.  Wheeling,  99  U.  S.  284,  25  L.  ed.  412, 
affirming  9  W.  Va.  170,  27  Am.  Eep.  552;  The  North  Cape,  6  Biss. 
505,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,316;  Lott  v.  Mobile  Trade  Co.,  43  Ala.  578; 
Gunther  v.  City  of  Baltimore,  55  Md.  457. 


453  Tonnage  Duties.  Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  3 

her  home  port  is  valid,17  although  such  vessel  is  enrolled  and 
registered  under  United  States  laws.18  So  the  assessment  of 
a  vessel  in  its  own  city  for  a  city  tax  is  not  objectionable  as  a 
duty  on  tonnage.19  A  state  license  fee  for  ferrying  on  a  navi- 
gable river  is  not  a  tonnage  tax,  but  is  a  proper  exercise  of  the 
police  power,  and  the  fact  that  a  vessel  is  enrolled  under  federal 
laws  does  not  exempt  it.20  A  state  cannot  levy  a  tax  on  ton- 
nage upon  interstate  transportation.21  But  a  tax  based  upon 
the  gross  receipts  derived  from  transportation  is  unobjection- 
able.22 Such  a  tax,  however,  must  be  in  the  nature  of  a  prop- 
erty tax;23  a  tax  upon  fhe  receipts  as  such  is  void.24 

A  tonnage  tax  cannot  be  employed  as  a  means  of  enforcing 
some  law  which  it  is  within  the  constitutional  authority  of 
the  state  to  enact.25  So  a  state  cannot  impose  a  tonnage  tax 
or  duty  to  defray  the  expenses  of  its  quarantine  system,26  but 
a  fixed  fee  for  examination  imposed  on  all  vessels  passing 
quarantine  is  valid.27     Charges  for  pilotage  are  not  repugnant 

17  State  Tonnage  Tax  Cases,  12  Wall.  212,  20  L.  ed.  370;  Passenger 
Cases,  7  How.  283,  12  L.  ed.  702;  Morgan  v.  Parham,  16  Wall.  472. 
21  L.  ed.  303. 

18  Transportation  Co.  v.  Wheeling,  99  U.  S.  284,  25  L.  ed.  412, 
affirming  9  W.  Va.  170.  27  Am.  Rep.  552;  Lott  v.  Mobile  T."  Co.,  42 
Ala.  578;  Lott  v.  Cox,  43  Ala.  697. 

19  The  North  Cape,  6  Biss.  505,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,316. 

20  Wiggins  Ferry  Co.  v.  East  St.  Louis,  107  XJ.  S.  375,  377,  2  S. 
Ct.  25,  27  L.  ed.  419.  But  see  Moran  v.  New  Orleans,  112  U.  S.  74, 
50  S.  Ct.  40,  28  L.  ed.  653. 

21  Case  of  the  State  Freight  Tax,  15  WalL  225,  21  L.  ed.  146; 
Gloucester  FeTry  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  114  U.  S.  212,  5  S.  Ct.  833, 
29  L.  ed.  158;  Steamship  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  122  U.  S.  338,  30  L. 
ed.  1200. 

22  State  Tax  on  Railway  Gross  Receipts,  15  Wall.  296,  21  L.  ed. 
164;  Osborne  v.  Mobile,  16  Wall.  481,  21  L.  ed.  470. 

23  McHenry  v.  Alford,  168  U.  S.  670,  8  S.  Ct.  250,  42  L.  ed.  614. 

24  Fargo  v.  Michigan,  121  U.  S.  242,  7  S.  Ct.  861,  30  L.  ed.  888; 
Indiana  v.  American  Exp.  Co.,  7  Biss.  230,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7021;  Ver- 
mont R.  R.  Co.  v.  Central  Vt.  R.  R.  Co.,  63  Vt.  23,  21  Atl.  267,  10 
L.  R.  A.  562. 

25  Johnson  v.  Drummond,  20  Gratt.  419. 

26  Peete  v.  Morgan,  19  Wall.  581,  22  L.  ed.  201. 

27  Morgan  v.  Louisiana,  118  U.  S.  462,  6  S.  Ct.  1118,  30  L.  ed.  237, 
affirming  36  La.  Ann.  669. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  3  Tonnage  Duties.  451 

to  this  clause,28  and  this  notwithstanding  the  law  charges  ves- 
sels with  half  fees  if  a  pilot  is  not  taken.-9 

Compensatory  Fees. 


Where  a  state,  or  a  city  by  authority  of  a  state,  has  improved 
its  rivers  and  harbors  by  erecting  docks  and  wharves,  it  may 
regulate  their  use  and  charge  tolls  therefor.30  Wharfage 
charged  to  vessels  for  the  use  of  a  wharf  is  not  a  tonnage 
duty,  notwithstanding  it  is  graduated  according  to  the  size  of 
the  vessels  computed  by  their  tonnage.31  For  the  purpose  of 
regulating  the  compensation  to  be  paid,  it  is  immaterial 
whether  the  wharf  were  built  by  the  state,  a  municipal  cor- 
poration or  an  individual,32  and  where  a  wharf  is  owned  by 
a  city,  the  fact  that  the  city  realizes  a  profit  beyond  the  amount 
expended  does  not  render  the  toll  objectionable.33 

A  statute  allowing  fees  to  harbor-masters  for  assigning  vessels 
to  their  berths  is  not  a  tonnage  duty,  although  the  fees  are  as- 
certained by  the  tonnage.34     Such  services  must,  however,  be 

28  Cooley  v.  Board  of  Wardens,  12  How.  313,  13  L.  ed.  996;  Harri- 
son v.  Green,  18  Cal.  94;  Baker  v.  Wise,  16  Gratt.  139. 

29  Cooley  v.  Board  of  Wardens,  12  How.  319,  320,  13  L.  ed.  996; 
Steamship  Co.  v.  Juliffer,  2  Wall.  457,  17  L.  ed.  805;  Ex  parte  Mc- 
Neil, 13  Wall.  242,  20  L.  ed.  624. 

30  Packet  Co.  v.  Catlettsburg,  105  U.  S.  563,  26  L.  ed.  1169;  Trans- 
portation Co.  v.  Parkersburg,  107  U.  S.  702,  2  S.  Ct.  741,  27  L.  ed. 
584;  Ouachita  Packet  Co.  v.  Aiken,  121  U.  S.  447,  7  S.  Ct.  909,  30 
L.  ed.  976;  Dubuque  v.  Stout,  32  Iowa,  86,  7  Am.  Uep.  176;  Thames 
Bank  v.  Lovell,  18  Conn.  500,  46  Am.  Dec.  332;  Kusenberg  v.  Browne, 
42  Pa.  St.  182. 

31  Packet  Co.  v.  Keokuk,  95  U.  S.  84,  24  L.  ed.  377;  Packet  Co. 
v.  St.  Louis,  100  U.  S.  429,  25  L.  ed.  688;  Vicksburg  v.  Tobiu,  100 
U.  S.  430,  25  L.  ed.  690;  Transportation  Co.  v.  Parkersburg,  107  U. 
S.  691,  2  S.  Ct.  732,  27  L.  ed.  584;  Northwestern  etc.  Co.  v.  St.  Louia, 
4  Dill.  15;  People  v.  Roberts,  92  Cal.  6u9,  28  Pac.  689;  O'Uonley  v. 
City  of  Natchez,  9  Miss.  31,  40  Am.  Dec.  87;  The  Ann  Kyan,  7  Ben. 
20,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  428. 

32  Packet  Co.  v.  Keokuk,  95  U.  S.  81,  24  L.  ed.  377;  Cannon  v. 
New  Orleans,  20  Wall.  577. 

33  Ouachita  Packet  Co.  v.  Aiken,  121  U.  S.  449,  7  S.  Ct.  909,  30 
L.  ed.  976. 

o4   State  v.  Charleston,  4  Eich.  286;  Benedict  v.  Vanderbilt,  1  Bob. 


455  Tonnage  Duties.  Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  3 

actually  rendered  and  a  law  allowing  harbor-masters  or  port 
wardens  to  impose  a  fee  in  all  cases  is  void.35  Fees  exacted 
for  the  use  of  improved  rivers  and  locks  or  canals  are  not  re- 
pugnant to  this  clause,36  and  charges  may  be  based  upon  ton- 
nage as  in  the  case  of  wharves.37 

Neither  a  state  nor  a  municipality  can  impose  a  tonnage  tax 
under  cover  of  collecting  fees  for  the  use  of  improvements.38 
So  a  tax  levied  upon  all  vessels  entering  and  mooring  anywhere 
in  port,  without  reference  to  their  use  of  wharves  or  other  im- 
provements, is  a  tonnage  duty  and  so  void,39  and  the  collection 
of  fees  by  the  state  or  municipality  in  absence  of  ownership  of 
the  wharves  is  unconstitutional.40  The  power  of  the  states 
over  wharfage  includes  the  power  to  discriminate  between  dif- 
ferent vessels  and  different  occupations  in  the  assignments  of 
berths,41  but  any  discrimination  against  products  coming  from 
other  states  would  be  void  under  the  commerce  clause.42 
Whether  a  charge  is  wharfage  or  a  duty  of  tonnage  is  a  ques- 
tion, not  of  intent,  but  of  fact  and  law — of  fact,  whether  it  is 
imposed  for  the  use  of  a  wharf  or  for  the  privilege  of  entering 

194;  Port  Wardens  v.  The  Martha  J.  Ward,  14  La.  Ann.  289;  Master 
v.  Prats,  10  Bob.   (La.)   459. 

35  Southern  Steamship  Co.  v.  Port  Wardens,  6  Wall.  31,  18  L.  ed. 
749;  Inman  Steamship  Co.  v.  Tinker,  94  U.  S.  238,  24  L.  ed.  118; 
Hackley  v.  Geraghty,  34  N.  J.  L.  332;  Sheffield  v.  Parsons,  3  Stew.  & 
P.  302;  Alexander  v.  Kailroad  Co.,  3  Strob.  594;  Harbor-Master  etc. 
v.  Southerland,  47  Ala.  516. 

36  Huse  v.  Glover,  119  U.  S.  548,  7  S.  Ct.  313,  30  L.  ed.  487,  affirm- 
ing 15  Fed.  292;  Sands  v.  Manistee  Eiver  Imp.  Co.,  123  U.  S.  296. 
8  S.  Ct.  117,  31  L.  ed.  149;  Thames  Bank  v.  Lovell,  18  Conn.  500,  46 
Am.  Dee.  332;  Carondelet  Canal  etc.  Co.  v.  Parker,  29  La.  Ann.  430, 
29  Am.  Eep.  339. 

37  Huse  v.  Glover,  119  IT.  S.  548,   7  S.  Ct.  313,  30  L.  ed.  487. 

38  Packet  Co.  v.  Keokuk,  95  II.  S.  86,  21  L.  ed.  377;  State  Tonnage 
Tax  Cases,  12  Wheat.  219,  6  L.  ed.  606;  The  Lizzie  E.,  30  Fed.  87S. 

39  Cannon  v.  New  Orleans,  20  Wall.  581,  22  L.  ed.  417;  Transpor- 
tation Co.  v.  Parkersburg,  107  U.  S.  699,  2  S.  Ct.  732,  27  L.  ed.  584; 
Northwestern  U.  P.  Co.  v.  St.  Paul,  3  Dill.  454,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,346; 
St.  Louis  v.  Schulenburg  etc.  Co.,  13  Mo.  App.  60. 

40  People  v.  Pacific  Eolling  Mills,  60  Cal.  327. 

41  The  John  M.  Welch,  9  Ben.  507,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7359. 

42  The  Wharf  Case,  3  Bland,  361. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  3     Agreements  or  Compacts.  456 

a  port;  of  law,  whether  according  to  the  facts  it  is  a  wharfage 
or  a  duty  of  tonnage.43  Penalties  imposed  for  refusal  to  obey 
municipal  rules  as  to  landing  places  and  harbor-master's  orders, 
are  not  tonnage  taxes.44 

Agreements  or  Compacts.* 

As  respects  their  local  government,  the  states  are  sovereign 
within  their  own  limits  and  foreign  to  each  other.45  This  sov- 
ereignty of  the  states  in  their  relations  with  each  other  is  quali- 
fied,46 in  that  they  have  surrendered  their  treaty-making 
powers  to  the  general  government,47  and  it  is  the  right  and 
duty  of  the  general  government  to  protect  the  interests  of  the 
several  states  in  their  relations  with  each  other.48 

The  terms  "compacts"  and  "agreements,"  as  used  in  this  sec- 
tion, cover  all  stipulations  affecting  the  conduct  or  claims  of 
states,49  whether  verbal  or  written,  formal  or  informal,  positive 
or  implied,  with  each  other  or  with  foreign  powers.50  Such 
an  agreement  or  compact  as  is  in  its  nature  political,  or  which 
may  conflict  with  the  powers  delegated  to  the  general  govern- 
ment,51 as  on  the  question  of  boundary  between  the  states52  or 

43  Transportation  Co.  v.  Parkersburg,  107  U.  S.  696,  2  S.  Ct.  732, 
27  L.  ed.  584. 

44  Packet  Co.  v.  Catlettsburg,  105  U.  S.  562,  26  L.  ed.  1169. 

45  Buckner  v.  Finley,  2  Pet.  591,  7  L.  ed.  528;  Bank  of  United 
States  v.  Daniel,  12  Pet.  54,  9  L.  ed.  989;  Makon  v.  Justice,  127  U. 
8.  706,  8.  S.  Ct.  1204,  32  L.  ed.  283;  Hatch  v.  Spofford,  22  Conn.  497, 
58  Am.  Dec.  436;  Seevers  v.  Clement,  28  Md.  434;  Smith  v.  Lathrop, 
44  Pa.  St.  330,  84  Am.  Dec.  450. 

40  Mahon  v.  Justice,  127  U.  S.  705,  8  S.  Ct.  1204,  32  L.  ed.  283. 

47  Holmes  v.  Jennison,  14  Pet.  571,  10  L.  ed.  579;  United  States 
v.  Eauscher,  119  U.  S.  412,  7  S.  Ct.  237,  30  L.  ed.  425;  In  re  Parroto, 
1  Fed.  481;  People  v.  Curtis,  50  N.  Y.  325,  10  Am.  Kep.  486, 

48  Florida  v.  Georgia,  17  How.  478,  15  L.  ed.  181. 

49  Virginia  v.  Tennessee,  148  U.  S.  520,  13  S.  Ct.  728,  37  L.  el. 
537. 

50  Holmes  v.  Jennison,  14  Pet.  571,  10  L.  ed.  579. 

51  Union  K.  B.  Co.  v.  East  Tennessee  E.  E.  Co.,  14  Ga.  327. 

52  Florida  v.  Georgia,  17  How.  478,  15  L.  ed.  181;  Virginia  v.  West 
Virginia,  11  Wall.  60,  20  L.  ed.  67;  Virginia  v.  Tennessee,  148  U.  S. 
520,  13  S.  Ct.  728,  37  L.  ed.  537. 


See,  also,    art.  I,  §  10,  cl.  1,  ante. 


457  Agreements  or  Compacts.     Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  3 

the  surrender  of  fugitives,53  cannot  operate  as  a  restriction 
upon  the  powers  of  Congress  under  the  constitution.54  The 
consent  of  Congress  is  necessary  to  the  binding  force  of  any 
such  agreement  or  compact;55  but  the  mode  or  form  in  which 
such  consent  shall  be  evidenced  is  in  the  discretion  of  Congress. 
It  may  be  given  after  an  agreement  has  been  reached,  and  may 
be  implied  from  the  sanction  and  enforcement  of  its  objects, 
or  by  the  adoption  or  approval  of  proceedings  taken  under  it.56 
A  compact  made  with  the  consent  of  Congress  is  binding  upon 
the  contracting  states  and  upon  their  subjects  and  citizens.57 

The  prohibition  is  political,  and  has  no  reference  to  grants 
of  franchises.58  So  an  agreement  between  corporations 
chartered  by  different  states,  to  consolidate,  cannot  in  any 
sense  be  deemed  an  agreement  or  compact  between  states.59 
An  agreement  between  states  entered  into  in  1785  did  not  vio- 
late the  Articles  of  Confederation.60  The  selection  of  parties 
to  fix  the  boundary  line  between  states  imports  no  agreement 
to  accept  such  line;  hence  is  not  within  the  prohibition.61  The 
confederation  of  the  seceding  states  was  in  direct  violation  of 
this  clause.62 

53  Holmes  v.  Jennison,  14  Pet.  574,  10  L.  ed.  579;  People  v.  Curtis, 
50  N.  Y.  325,  10  Am.  Kep.  486;  United  States  v.  Kauseker,  119  U. 
S.  412,  7  S.  Ct.  237,  30  L.  ed.  425. 

54  Wilson  v.  Mason,  1  Cr.  45,  2  L.  ed.  29;  Pennsylvania  v.  Wheel- 
ing etc.  Br.  Co.,  IS  How.  421,  15  L.  ed.  435. 

55  Virginia  v.  West  Virginia,  11  Wall.  60,  20  L.  ed.  67;  Virginia 
v.  Tennessee,  148  U.  S.  520,  13  S.  Ct.  728,  37  L.  ed.  537;  New  Hamp- 
shire v.  Louisiana,  108  U.  S.  76,  2  S.  Ct.  176,  27  L.  ed.  656. 

56  Green  v.  Biddle,  8  Wheat.  87,  5  L.  ed.  547;  Virginia  v.  Ten- 
nessee, 148  U.  S.  521,  13  S.  Ct.  728,  37  L.  ed.  537. 

57  Poole  v.  Fleegler,  11  Pet.  209,  9  L.  ed.  6S0;  Missouri  v.  Iowa, 
7  How.  667,  12  L.  ed.  831;  Rhode  Island  v.  Massachusetts,  12  Pet. 
657,  9  L.  ed.  233. 

58  Union  Branch  K.  B.  Co.  v.  East  Tennessee  etc.  K.  B.  Co.,  14 
Ga.  327. 

59  Dover  v.  Portsmouth  Br.,  17  N.  H.  200. 

60  Wharton  v.  Wise,  153  U.  S.  167,  14  S.  Ct.  787,  38  L.  ed.  669. 

61  Virginia  v.  Tennessee,  148  U.  S.  520,  13  S.  Ct.  728,  37  L.  ed.  537. 

62  In  re  Milner,  1  Bank.  Reg.  107. 


Art.  I,  §  10,  CI.  3  Troops.  45S 

Troops. 

The  states  cannot,  without  the  consent  of  Congress,  levy  war, 
or  make  peace  or  enter  into  a  compact  with  any  other  state.03 
The  organization  and  maintenance  of  an  active  state  militia 
is  not  a  keeping  of  troops  in  time  of  peace,  within  the  prohibi- 
tion of  this  clause.64  This  clause  contemplates  the  use  of  the 
state's  military  power  to  put  down  an  armed  insurrection  too 
strong  to  he  controlled  by  civil  authority,  and  the  state  con- 
cerned must  determine  what  degree  of  force  the  crisis  de- 
mands.65 

63  New  Hampshire  v.  Louisiana,  10S  U.  S.  76,  2  S.  Ct.  176,  27 
L.  ed.  656. 

64  Dunne  v.  People,  94  111.  120;  State  v.  Wagoner,  74  Minn.  57S, 
73  Am.  St.  Rep.  369,  77  N.  W.  424,  42  L.  E.  A.  749. 

65  Luther  v.  Borden,  7  How.  45,  12  L.  ed.  581. 


459  Executive  Power.         Art.  II,  §  1,  CI.  1 


ARTICLE  II. 

EXECUTIVE  DEPARTMENT. 
SECTION  1. 

powers  of  executive. 

1.  President  and  Vice-President.     Terms  of. 

2.  Electors. 

3.  Manner  of  choosing  President  by  electors. 

4.  Time  of  choosing  electors. 

5.  President's  qualifications. 

6.  Vacancy  in  office  of. 

7.  Salary. 

8.  Oath. 

1.  The  executive  power  shall  be  vested  in  a  President 
of  the  United  States  of  America.  He  shall  hold  his 
office  during  the  term  of  four  years,  and,  together  with 
the  Vice-President,  chosen  for  the  same  term,  be  elected, 
as  follows: 

Executive  Powers  in  General. 

Under  the  constitution  certain  political  powers  are  vested  in 
the  President  which  are  to  be  exercised  by  him  in  Ms  discre- 
tion without  any  hindrance  or  control  on  the  part  of  the  ju- 
diciary,1 and  so  far  as  he  derives  his  powers  from  the  consti- 
tution, he  is  beyond  the  reach  of  any  other  department  of 
government,  except  by  impeachment  in  the  mode  prescribed 

l  Marbury  v.  Madison,  1  Cr.  169,  170,  2  L.  ed.  60;  In  re  Kaine,  14 
How.  119,  128,  14  L.  ed.  345;  Bartlett  v.  Kane,  16  How.  272,  14  L. 
ed.  931;  Board  of  Liquidation  v.  McComb,  92  U.  S.  541,  23  L.  ed. 
623;  Craig  v.  Leitensdorfer,  123  U.  S.  211,  8  S.  Ct.  85,  31  L.  ed.  114, 
Quackenbush  v.  United  States,  177  U.  S.  25,  20  S.  Ct.  530,  44  L. 
ed.  654;  Durand  v.  Hollins,  4  Blatchf.  454,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4186;  State 
v.  Churchill,  48  Ark.  443,  3  S.  W.  360;  Burch  v.  Hardwieke,  23  Gratt. 
51;  Dreucker  v.  Salomon,  21  Wis.  629,  94  Am.  Dec.  577;  Worthington 
v.  Scribner,  109  Mass.  487,  12  Am.   Dec.  739. 


Art.  II,  §  1,  CI.  1         Executive  Power.  460 

in  the  constitution.2  In  the  performance  of  any  act  involving 
the  exercise  of  discretion  the  executive  is  exempt  from  man- 
damus or  injunction.3  Nor  is  the  President  subject  to  the 
writ  of  habeas  corpus.4 

The  President  properly  acts  through  the  heads  of  the  several 
departments  of  the  executive  branch  of  the  government,  in  rela- 
tion to  the  subjects  appertaining  to  their  respective  duties,5  and 
the  acts  of  such  department  heads  are  deemed  to  be  the  acts  of 
the  President  himself.6  Accordingly  the  discretionary  acts  of 
executive  departments  are  exempt  from  judicial  control.7 

2  Kendall  v.  United  States,  12  Pet.  610,  9  L.  ed.  1181;  State  ex 
rel.  v.  Governor,  17  Fla.  74.  And  see  United  States  v.  Arredondo, 
6  Pet.  729,  8  L.  ed.  547. 

3  Marbury  v.  Madison,  1  Cr.  169-173,  2  L.  ed.  60;  Mississippi  v. 
Johnson,  4  Wall.  500,  18  L.  ed.  437;  Georgia  v.  Stanton,  6  Wall.  77, 
18  L.  ed.  721;  United  States  v.  Black,  128  U.  S.  48,  9  S.  Ct.  12,  32 
L.  ed.  354;  United  States  v.  Blaine,  139  U.  S.  319,  11  S.  Ct.  607,  35 
L.  ed.  183;  Keiin  v.  United  States,  177  U.  S.  293,  20  S.  Ct.  574,  44 
L.  ed.  774. 

4  In  re  Keeler,  Hemp.  306,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7637. 

5  Williams  v.  United  States,  1  How.  298,  11  L.  ed.  135;  Eunkle  v. 
United  States,  122  U.  S.  557,  7  S.  Ct.  1141,  30  L.  ed.  1167. 

6  Wilcox  v.  Jackson,  13  Pet.  513,  10  L.  ed.  264;  United  States 
v.  Farden,  99  U.  S.  19,  25  L.  ed.  267;  HegleT  v.  Faulkner,  153  U.  S. 
117,  14  S.  Ct.  779,  38  L.  ed.  653;  United  States  v.  Baltimore  etc. 
E.  E.  Co.,  1  Hughes,  144,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,510;  In  re  Sprangler,  11 
Mich.  332;  United  States  v.  Cutter,  2  Curt.  623,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,911. 

7  Bartlett  v.  Kane,  16  How.  272,  14  L.  ed.  931;  Board  of  Liquida- 
tion v.  McComb,  92  U.  S.  541,  23  L.  ed.  623;  United  States  v.  Bashaw, 
152  U.  S.  443,  14  S.  Ct.  638,  38  L.  ed.  505;  Keim  v.  United  States, 
177  U.  S.  292,  20  S.  Ct.  574,  44  L.  ed.  774;  Carrick  v.  Lamar,  116  U. 
S.  426,  6  S.  Ct.  425,  29  L.  ed.  677.  Instances  of  acts  which  the 
courts  have  held  to  be  discretionary  are  to  be  found  in  Decatur  v. 
Paulding,  14  Pet.  515-517,  10  L.  ed.  559;  Brashear  v.  Mason,  6  How. 
101,  12  L.  ed.  357;  Eeeside  v.  Walker,  11  How.  290,  13  L.  ed.  693; 
United  States  v.  Seaman,  17  How.  230;  United  States  v.  Guthrie,  17 
How.  304,  15  L.  ed.  102;  Commissioner  of  Patents  v.  Whiteley,  4 
Wall.  534,  18  L.  ed.  335;  Gaines  v.  Thompson,  7  Wall.  350,  19  L. 
ed.  62;  Secretary  v.  McGarrahan,  9  Wall.  312,  19  L.  ed.  579;  Carrick 
v.  Lamar,  116  U.  S.  426,  6  S.  Ct.  425,  29  L.  ed.  677;  United  States  v. 
Black,  128  U.  S.  45,  9  S.  Ct.  13,  32  L.  ed.  354;  United  States  v. 
Lynch,  137  U.  S.  286,  11  S.  Ct.  116,  34  L.  ed.  700;  Keafield  v.  Win- 
dom,  137  U.  S.  643,  11  S.  Ct.  199,  34  L.  ed.  811. 


461  Executive  Power.         Art.  II,  §  1,  CI.  1 

A  distinction  is  to  be  made  between  those  acts  which  involve 
the  exercise  of  judgment  or  discretion,  and  those  in  which  the 
duty  is  merely  ministerial.8  In  the  latter  class  of  acts  the 
duty  is  one  "imposed  by  law,"9  "peremptorily  and  plainly  de- 
fined."10 When  these  acts  are  in  question  the  officer  is  re- 
quired to  abandon  his  right  to  exercise  his  personal  judgment,11 
and  the  performance  of  the  act  may  be  compelled  or  forbidden 
as  the  right  appears  to  the  court.12 

"Political  questions"  are  always  matters  of  discretion,  and  as 
to  these  the  courts  disclaim  any  right  of  control,13  and  when 
the  executive  department  has  not  parted  with  its  power  over  a 
political  matter  the  intervention  of  the  judicial  department 
cannot  be  invoked.14  Of  a  political  nature  are  questions  re- 
lating to  the  recognition  of  the  existence  of  an  Indian  tribal 
relation;15  the  public  character  of  a  person  claiming  to  be  a 
foreign  minister;16  the  fixing  of  the  date  when  foreign  juris- 
diction over  acquired  territory  ceases;17  whether  or  not  a  state 

8  Marbury  v.  Madison,  1  Cr.  169-173,  2  L.  ed.  60. 

9  Knox  County  Commissioners  v.  Aspinwall,  24  How.  376,  16  L. 
ed.  735. 

10  United  States  ex  rel.  v.  Lamont,  155  U.  S.  308,  15  S.  Ct.  98, 
39  L.  ed.  160;  Enterprise  etc.  v.  Zumstein,  67  Fed.  1007;  State  ex 
rel.  v.  Meier,  143  Mo.  446,  43  S.  W.  307;  State  v.  Lord,  28  Or.  525, 
43  Pac.  478,  31  L.  K.  A.  473. 

ii  Gaines  v.  Thompson,  7  Wall.  352,  19  L.  ed.  62;  Noble  v.  Union 
etc.  Co.,  147  U.  S.  171,  13  S.  Ct.  272,  37  L.  ed.  123;  Lane  v.  Ander- 
son, 67  Fed.  565;  Dudley  v.  James,  83  Fed.  349. 

12  Marbury  v.  Madison,  1  Cr.  169-173,  2  L.  ed.  60;  Gaines  v. 
Thompson,  7  Wall.  349,  19  L.  ed.  123;  United  States  v.  Schurz,  102 
U.  S.  395,  26  L.  ed.  167,  219;  United  States  ex  rel.  v.  Block,  128  U. 
S.  48,  9  S.  Ct.  14,  32  L.  ed.  354;  Noble  v.  Union  etc.  K.  E.  Co.,  147 
U.  S.  171,  13  S.  Ct.  272,  37  L.  ed.  123;  Hoover  v.  McChesney,  81  Fed. 
482;  Dudley  v.  James,  83  Fed.  345,  317. 

13  Marbury  v.  Madison,  1  Cr.  169,  2  L.  ed.  60;  Foster  v.  Neilson,  2 
Pet.  307,  7  L.  ed.  415;  Craig  v.  Missouri,  4  Pet.  438,  7  L.  ed.  903; 
In  re  Baiz,  135  U.  S.  142,  10  S.  Ct.  854,  34  L.  ed.  222;  In  re  Cooper, 
143  U.  S.  503,  12  S.  Ct.  453,  36  L.  ed.  232. 

14  United  States  v.  Blaine,  139  U.  S.  326,  11  S.  Ct.  607,  35  L.  ed. 
183. 

15  United  States  v.  Holiday,  3  Wall.  419,  18  L.  ed.  182. 

16  In  re  Baiz.  135  U.  S.  142,  10  S.  Ct.  854,  34  L.  ed.  222. 

17  More  v.  Steinbach,  127  U.  S.  SO,  S  S.  Ct.  1067,  32  L.  ed.  51. 


Art.  II,  §  1,  CI.  1         Executive  Tower.  462 

constitution  or  an  amendment  thereof  has  heen  ratified  by  the 
people;18  whether  military  authority  has  been  established;19 
how  long  military  occupation  of  territory  shall  be  necessary;20 
the  question  as  to  the  exist  cue  of  a  treaty;21  the  recognition  of 
sovereignty  and  of  foreign  states;22  the  determination  of  dis- 
puted boundaries  between  the  United  States  and  a  foreign  na- 
tion;23 the  regulation  of  the  admission  of  foreigners.24 

It  is  the  duty  of  the  President  to  see  that  the  laws  are  faith- 
fully executed,  and  injunction  will  not  lie  to  prevent  him  or 
his  officers  from  enforcing  them.25  The  enforcement  of  the 
constitutional  guaranty  of  a  republican  form  of  government 
belongs  to  the  political  department.20  The  obligation  con- 
ferred upon  the  President  to  see  the  laws  faithfully  executed 
does  not  confer  any  power  to  forbid  their  execution.27 

Congress  may  authorize  the  President  to  restrict  or  regu- 
late the  introduction  of  merchandise  into  a  territory  under 
such  penalties  as  may  be  prescribed  by  Congress;28  but  he  has 
no  common-law  authority  to  interdict  commercial  intercourse 
with  any  nation,  or    revive  any  act    whose  operation    has  ex- 

18  Luther  v.  Borden,  7  How.  39,  12  L.  ed.  581. 

19  Keely  v.  Sanders,  99  U.  S.  446,  25  L.  ed.  327. 

20  Neely  v.  Henkel,  180  IT.  S.  124,  21  S.  Ct.  302,  45  L.  ed.  448. 

21  Terlinden  v.  Ames,  184  TJ.  S.  288,  22  S.  Ct.  484,  46  L.  ed.  534. 

22  United  States  v.  Palmer,  3  Wheat.  634,  4  L.  ed.  471;  The  Divina 
Pastora,  4  Wheat.  63,  4  L.  ed.  512;  The  Santissima  Trinidad,  7  Wheat. 
283,  5  L.  ed.  454;  Williams  v.  Suffolk  Ins.  Co.,  13  Pet.  420,  10  L.  ed. 
226;  Kennett  v.  Chambers,  14  How.  50,  14  L.  ed.  316;  United  States 
v.  Yorba,  1  Wall.  423,  17  L.  ed.  635;  Phillips  v.  Payne,  92  U.  S.  13?; 
23  L.  ed.  649;  Jones  v.  United  States,  137  U.  S.  212,  34  L.  ed.   691. 

23  De  La  Croix  v.  Chamberlain,  12  Wheat.  600,  6  L.  ed.  741;  Foster 
v.  Neilson,  2  Pet.  307,  7  L.  ed.  415;  Garcia  v.  Lee,  12  Pet.  516,  9 
L.  ed.  1176;  United  States  v.  Reynes,  9  How.  154,  13  L.  ed.  74. 

24  Ekiu  v.  United  States,  142  U.  S.  660,  35  L.  ed.  1146;  Fong  Yue 
Ting  v.  United  States,  149  U.  S.  712,  13  S.  Ct.  1016,  37  L.  ed.  905. 

25  Mississippi  v.  Johnson,  4  Wall.  500,  501,  18  L.  ed.  437;  Georgia 
v.  Stanton,  6i  Wall.  77,  18  L.  ed.  721. 

26  Taylor  v.  Beckham,  17S  U.  S.  578,  20  S.  Ct.  1009,  44  L.  ed.  1187. 

27  Kendall  v.  United  States,  12  Pet.  613,  9  L.  ed.  1181. 
2S  The  Louisa  Simpson,  2  Saw.  57,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8533. 


463  Executive  Power.         Art.  II,  §  1,  CI.  1 

pired.29  So,  also,  under  an  act  of  Congress  the  President 
may  order  the  discharge  upon  proper  terms  and  conditions  of 
a  dehtor  imprisoned  at  the  suit  of  the  government.30  While 
Congress  cannot  delegate  to  the  President  power  to  make  a 
law,  with  discretion  as  to  what  it  shall  be,  yet  it  may  confer 
upon  him  authority  or  discretion  as  to  its  execution  to  be  ex- 
ercised in  pursuance  of  its  provisions.31  Thus  a  provision  au- 
thorizing; the  President  to  suspend  the  provisions  of  a  tariff  act 
is  unobjectionable;32  and  this  is  true  of  an  act  regulating  the 
manufacture  of  oleomargarine  and  authorizing  the  commis- 
sioner of  internal  revenue  to  make  regulations  concerning 
marks  and  brands.33  A  question  not  necessarily  judicial  may, 
by  statute,  be  submitted  to  executive  officers,34  and  the  Presi- 
dent may  be  authorized  to  suspend  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus 
when,  in  his  judgment,  the  public  safety  so  requires.35  If  the 
President  assumes  powers  which  should  have  the  authorization 
or  sanction  of  Congress,  a  ratification  cures  the  defect.36  Con- 
gress may  impose  on  an  executive  officer  any  duty  which  is  not 
repugnant  to  any  right  secured  and  protected  by  the  constitu- 
tion.37 

29  The  Orono,  1  Gall.  137,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,585. 

30  United  States  v.  Einggold,  8  Pet.  164,  8  L.  ed.  899. 

31  Field  v.  Clark,  143  U.  S.  693,  12  S.  Ct.  495,  36  L.  ed.  294;   St. 
Louis  Coal  Co.  v.  Illinois,  185  U.  S.  211,  46  L.  ed.  872. 

32  Field  v.  Clark,  143  U.  S.  694,  12  S.  Ct.  495,  36  L.  ed.  294. 

33  In  re  Kollock,  165  U.  S.  536,  17  S.  Ct.  444,  41  L.  ed.  813. 

34  Fong  Yue  Ting  v.  United  States,  149  U.  S.  714,  13  S.  Ct.  1016, 
37  L.  ed.  905. 

35  McCall  v.  McDowell,   Deady,   233,  1  Abb.  U.   S.  212,  Fed.   Cas. 
No.  8673;  In  re  Oliver,  17  Wis.    681. 

36  Prize  Cases,  2  Black,  670,  17  L.  ed.  459;  The  Francis  Hatch,  25 
Fed.  Cas.  1204. 

37  Marbury  v.  Madison,  1  Cr.  169,  2  L.  ed.  60;  Kendall  v.  Unite  I 
States,  13  Pet.  610,  9  L.  ed.  1181. 


Art.  II,  §  1,  CI.  2       Presidential  Electors.  464. 

2.  Each  State  shall  appoint,  in  such  manner  as  the 
legislature  thereof  may  direct,  a  number  of  electors, 
equal  to  the  whole  number  of  Senators  and  Representa- 
tives to  which  the  State  may  be  entitled  in  the  Congress: 
but  no  Senator  or  Representative,  or  person  holding  an 
office  of  trust  or  profit  under  the  United  States,  shall  be 
appointed  an  elector. 

Electors,  Appointment  of. 

While  the  power  to  appoint  to  the  office  of  elector  of  Presi- 
dent and  Vice-President  is  vested  in  the  states,  the  franchises 
and  privileges  of  the  office  originate  and  are  exercised  under 
the  constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States,  and  not  those 
of  the  states,1  and  a  state  law  directing  the  manner  of  appoint- 
ment of  electors  has  its  authority  solely  from  the  constitution.2 
The  word  "appoint"  is  here  used  in  its  broadest  sense,  and  is 
sufficiently  comprehensive  to  cover  the  result  of  a  popular 
election;  under  this  clause  the  appointment  may  he  made  by 
the  legislature  directly,  by  popular  vote  in  districts,  or  by 
election  on  a  general  ticket.3  A  person  disqualified  as  an 
elector  by  holding  "an  office  of  trust  or  profit  under  the  United 
States"  cannot  remove  the  disqualification  by  resigning  the  of- 
fice unless  such  resignation  precedes  his  appointment.  The  of- 
fice of  a  commissioner  of  the  United  States  Centennial  Com- 
mission is  an  office  of  trust  within  this  clause.4  Presidential 
electors  are  not  officers  or  agents  of  the  United  States.5  They 
have  been  held  to  be  state  officers  within  the  provisions  of  a 
statute  as  to  unexpired  terms.6 

1  State  v.  Bowen,  8  S.  C.  400. 

2  Ex  parte  Hayne,  1  Hughes,  571,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4336. 

3  McPherson  v.  Blacker,  146  U.  S.  27,  13  S.  Ct.  10,  36  L.  ed.  869, 
affirming  92  Mich.  390,  31  Am.  St.  Eep.  596,  32  N.  W.  473,  16  L.  E. 
A.  475. 

4  In  re  Corliss,  11  E.  I.  638,  23  Am.  Dec.  538. 

5  In  re  Green,  134  U.  S.  379,  10  S.  Ct.  586,  33  L.  ed.  951. 

6  Todd  v.  Johnson,  99  Ky.  554,  36  S.  W.  989. 


465  Presidential  Electors.      Art.  II,  §  1,  CI.  3 

3.  [The  electors  shall  meet  in  their  respective  States, 
and  vote  hj  ballot  for  two  persons,  of  whom  one  at  least 
shall  not  be  an  inhabitant  of  the  same  State  with  them- 
selves. And  they  shall  make  a  list  of  all  the  persons 
voted  for,  and  of  the  number  of  votes  for  each;  which 
list  they  shall  sign  and  certify,  and  transmit  sealed  to 
the  seat  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  di- 
rected to  the  President  of  the  Senate.  The  President 
of  the  Senate  shall,  in  the  presence  of  the  Senate  and 
House  of  Eepresentatives,  open  all  the  certificates,  and 
the  votes  shall  then  be  counted.  The  person  having  the 
greatest  number  of  votes  shall  be  the  President,  if  such 
number  be  a  majority  of  the  whole  number  of  electors 
appointed ;  and  if  there  be  more  than  one  who  have  such 
majority,  and  have  an  equal  number  of  votes,  then  the 
House  of  Representatives  shall  immediately  choose  by 
ballot  one  of  them  for  President ;  and  if  no  person  have 
a  majority,  then  from  the  five  highest  on  the  list  the 
said  House  shall  in  like  manner  choose  the  President. 
But  in  choosing  the  President,  the  votes  shall  be  taken 
by  States,  the  representation  from  each  State  having 
one  vote;  a  quorum  for  this  purpose  shall  consist  of  a 
member  or  members  from  two- thirds  of  the  States,  and 
a  majority  of  all  the  States  shall  be  necessary  to  a 
choice.  In  every  case  after  the  choice  of  the  President, 
the  person  having  the  greatest  number  of  votes  of  the 
electors  shall  be  the  Vice-President  But  if  there 
should  remain  two  or  more  who  have  equal  votes,  the 
Senate  shall  choose  from  them  by  ballot  the  Vice-Presi- 
dent.] 

Superseded  by  Xllth  Amendment. 
Notes  on  Constitution — 30 


Art.  II,  §  1,  CI.  4      Presidential  Electors.  466 

4.  The  Congress  may  determine  the  time  of  choos- 
ing the  electors,  and  the  day  on  which  they  shall  give 
their  votes;  which  day  shall  be  the  same  throughout  the 
United  States. 

Power  of  Congress. 

The  appointment  of  doctors  and  the  mode  thereof  belong  ex- 
clusively to  the  states;  but  the  time  of  choosing  them  and  the 
day  upon  which  they  are  to  give  their  votes  is  determinable  by 
Congress.1  This  clause  and  that  in  the  twelfth  amendment 
relative  to  the  opening  of  the  vote  confer  upon  Congress  the 
only  powers  it  possesses  with  relation  to  the  appointment  of 
electors.2  Where  a  state  law  fixes  a  date  for  the  meeting  of 
presidential  electors  different  from  that  provided  by  Congress, 
if  that  provision  is  separable  it  may  be  rejected  and  the  act 
remain  otherwise  valid.3  The  states  have  power  to  punish  for 
illegal  voting  for  presidential  electors.4 

1  McPherson  v.  Blacker,  146  IT.  S.  35,  13  S.  Ct.  10,  36  L.  ed.  S6% 
affirming  92  Mich.  390,  31  Am.  St.  Eep.  596,  32  N.  W.  473,  16  L.  E. 
A.  475. 

2  In  re  Green,  134  U.  S.  379,  10  S.  Ct.  586,  33  L.  ed.  951. 

3  McPherson  v.  Blacker,  146  TJ.  S.  41,  13  S.  Ct.  10,  36  L.  ed.  869. 

4  In  re  Green,  134  U.  S.  380,  10  S.  Ct.  586,  33  L.  ed.  951;  Mason  v. 
State,  55  Ark.  535,  18  S.  W.  829. 


467  The  President.        Art.  II,  §  1,  CI.  5-8 

5.  No  person  except  a  natural-born  citizen,  or  a  citi- 
zen of  the  United  States  at  the  time  of  the  adoption  of 
this  Constitution,  shall  be  eligible  to  the  office  of  Presi- 
dent; neither  shall  any  person  be  eligible  to  that  office 
who  shall  not  have  attained  to  the  age  of  thirty-five 
years,  and  been  fourteen  years  a  resident  within  the 
United  States. 

6.  In  case  of  the  removal  of  the  President  from  office, 
or  of  his  death,  resignation,  or  inability  to  discharge  the 
powers  and  duties  of  the  said  office,  the  same  shall  de- 
volve on  the  Vice-President,  and  the  Congress  may  by 
law  provide  for  the  case  of  removal,  death,  resignation, 
or  inability,  both  of  the  President  and  Vice-President, 
declaring  what  officer  shall  then  act  as  President,  and 
such  officer  shall  act  accordingly,  until  the  disability 
be  removed,  or  a  President  shall  be  elected. 

7.  The  President  shall,  at  stated  times,  receive  for 
his  services,  a  compensation,  which  shall  neither  be  in- 
creased nor  diminished  during  the  period  for  which  he 
shall  have  been  elected,  and  he  shall  not  receive  with- 
in that  period  any  other  emolument  from  the  United 
States,  or  any  of  them. 

8.  Before  he  enter  on  the  execution  of  his  office,  he 
shall  take  the  following  oath  or  affirmation :  "I  do  sol- 
emnly swear  (or  affirm)  that  I  will  faithfully  execute 
the  office  of  President  of  the  United  States,  and  will,  to 
the  best  of  my  ability,  preserve,  protect,  and  defend  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States." 

Oath. 

The  President  is  the  only  officer  required  to  take  this  oath.1 
By  it  the  President  simply  obligates  himself  to  obey  the  con- 
stitution and  to  use  the  power  which  it  confers  on  him  to  cause 

1  Metropolitan  Bank  v.  Van  Dyck,   27  N.  Y.  400. 


Art.  II,  §  1,  CI.  8  The  President.  468 

others  to  obey  it.2  The  oath  gives  to  the  President  no  addi- 
tional powers.2*  It  becomes  his  duty  to  see  that  the  laws  are 
faithfully  executed.3  and  his  obligation  conveys  no  power  to 
forbid  their  execution.4 

2  Griffin  v.  Wilcox,  21  Ind.  370. 
2a  In  re  Kemp,  16  Wis.  359. 

3  Mississippi  v.  Johnson,  4  Wall.  500,    18  L.  ed.  437;    Georgia  v. 
Stanton,  6  Wall.  77,  IS  L.  ed.  721. 

4  Kendall  v.  United  States,  12  Pet.  613,  9  L.  ed.  1181. 


469  COMMANDEB-LN-^HIKF.        Art.  II,  §  2,  CI.  1 


SECTION  2. 

OTHER  POWERS  AND  DUTIES 

1.  Act  as  Commander-in-Chief.     Reprieves,  pardons. 

2.  To  make  treaties,  how.     Appointments. 

3.  To  fill  vacancies. 

1.  The  President  shall  be  Commander-in-Chief  of  the 
Army  and  Navy  of  the  United  States,  and  of  the  militia 
of  the  several  States,  when  called  into  the  actual  service 
of  the  United  States;  he  may  require  the  opinion,  in 
writing,  of  the  principal  officer  in  each  of  the  Executive 
Departments,  upon  any  subject  relating  to  the  duties  of 
their  respective  offices  and  he  shall  have  power  to  grant 
reprieves  and  pardons  for  offenses  against  the  United 
States,  except  in  cases  of  impeachment. 

Commander-in-Chief. 

As  commander-in-chief  the  President  is  authorized  to  direct 
the  movements  of  the  naval  and  military  forces  placed  under 
his  command,  and  to  employ  them  in  a  manner  which  he  may 
deem  most  effectual  for  the  purposes  for  which  they  exist.1 
By  virtue  of  this  position  he  has  undoubted  power  to  establish 
rules  and  regulations  for  the  government  of  the  army  and  navy, 
or  may  modify  or  repeal  or  create  them  anew,2  and  such  rules 
and  regulations  cannot  be  questioned  or  defied  on  the  ground 
that  they  are  unwise.3  Army  and  navy  regulations  made  pur- 
suant to  the  authority  conferred  upon  the  President  have  the 

1  Fleming  v.  Page,  9  How.  603,  13  L.  ed.  276. 

2  United  States  v.  Eliason,  16  Pet.  302,  10  L.  ed.  968;  Kurtz  v. 
Moffitt,  115  U.  S.  503,  6  S.  Ct.  148,  29  L.  ed.  458;  United  States  v. 
Webster,  2  Ware  (Dav.),  46,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,658;  In  re  Griner,  10 
Wis.  423. 

3  United  States  v.  Eliason,  16  Pet.  302,  10  L.  ed.  9CS. 


Art.  II,  §  2,  CI.  1      Commander-in-Chief.  470 

force  of  law.4  When  promulgated  through  the  Secretary  of 
War  they  must  be  received  as  the  acts  of  the  President,  and  as 
such  are  binding  on  all  within  the  sphere  of  his  authority.5 

The  power  of  the  President  as  commander-in-chief  must  be 
exercised  in  accordance  with  the  laws  and  usages  of  nations,6 
and  in  the  manner  prescribed  by  the  legislative  department;7 
otherwise  his  orders  will  afford  no  protection  to  an  oilicer  act- 
ing under  them.8  So  an  instruction  to  an  oilicer  cannot  justify 
an  act  which,  without  it,  would  have  been  a  trespass.9  The 
President  is  bound  to  respect  the  right  of  the  states  to  appoint 
militia  officers  expressly  reserved  to  them  by  the  constitution.10 

He  is  authorized  by  law,  previous  to  a  declaration  of  war 
by  Congress,  to  meet  insurrection  or  invasion  by  military 
force.11  He  may,  jure  belli,  declare  a  blockade  of  hostile  ports 
in  a  civil  war  as  well  as  a  foreign  war,12  or  may  employ  secret 
agents  to  enter  the  enemy's  lines  to  obtain  information  regard- 
ing the  latter's  strength,  resources  and  movements,  and  direct 
payment  therefor  out  of  the  contingent  fund,13  and  if  money 
is  advanced  by  the  direction  of  the  head  of  the  proper  depart- 

4  United  States  v.  Freeman,  3  How.  567,  11  L.  ed.  724;  Gratiot  v. 
United  States,  4  How.  117,  11  L.  ed.  884;  Ex  parte  Eeed,  100  U. 
S.  22,  25  L.  ed.  538;  Smith  v.  Whitney,  116  U.  S.  118,  6  S.  Ct.  570, 
29  L.  ed.  601;  Moses  v.  United  States,  116  Fed.  526. 

5  United  States  v.  Eliason,  16  Pet.  302,  10  L.  ed.  968;  The  Con- 
fiscation Cases,  20  Wall.  109,  22  L.  ed.  320;  Kurtz  v.  Moffitt,  115  U.  S. 
503,  6  S.  Ct.  148,  29  L.  ed.  458;  Johnson  v.  Sayre,  158  U.  S.  114,  15 
S.  Ct.  773,  39  L.  ed.  914. 

6  Otis  v.  Bacon,  7  Cr.  589,  3  L.  ed.  448;  Tracy  v.  Swartwout,  10 
Pet.  80,  9  L.  ed.  354;  Ex  parte  Milligan,  4  Wall.  2,  18  L.  ed.  281. 

7  Little  v.  Barreme,  2  Cr.  170,  2  L.  ed.  243. 

3  Little  v.  Barreme,  2  Cr.  179,  2  L.  ed.  243;  In  re  Cooper,  143  U.  S. 
500,  12  S.  Ct.  459,  36  L.  ed.  232;  Belknap  v.  Schild,  161  U.  S.  18,  16 
S.  Ct.  445,  40  L.  ed.  599. 

9  Little  v.  Barreme,  2  Cr.  179,  2  L.  ed.  243. 

10  Anonymous,  2  Opin.  Atty.  Gen.  711. 

11  Prize  Cases,  2  Black,  66S,  17  L.  ed.  459;  Mathews  v.  McSten, 
91  U.  S.  12,  22  L.  ed.  448. 

12  Prize  Cases,  2  Black,  635,  17  L.  ed.  459;  The  Mary  Clinton, 
Blatchf.  Pr.  558. 

13  Totten  v.  United  States,  92  U.  S.  107,  23  L.  ed.  605. 


471  Commandek-in-€hief.      Art.  II,  §  2,  CI.  1 

ment,  the  order  of  trie  President  will  be  presumed.14  The 
President  cannot,  however,  establish  a  prize  court,  or  confer 
power  to  condemn  prizes  upon  any  inferior  officer,  civil  or  mili- 
tary.15 In  case  of  insurrection  he  may  accord  to  the  enemy 
the  character  of  belligerents.16  The  President  has  a  discre- 
tionary power  to  allow  such  additional  rations  to  officers  com- 
manding separate  posts  as  he  may  deem  just,  having  respect 
to  the  special  circumstances  of  each  post.17  The  War  Depart- 
ment, in  procuring  army  supplies,  may  purchase  hogs  and  em- 
ploy men  to  slaughter  them.18  The  propriety  of  detailing  a 
naval  officer  on  special  duty  in  France,  of  furnishing  him 
with  medical  attendance,  and  ratifying  his  act  in  employing  a 
physician,  are  matters  peculiarly  within  executive  discretion.19 
The  power  to  call  out  the  militia  is  vested  in  Congress  by 
article  I,  section  8,  clause  15,  but  may  be,  and  has  been  dele- 
gated to  the  President,20  together  with  the  authority  to  deter- 
mine exclusively  when  the  exigency  demanding  such  action 
has  arisen.21  Whenever  the  law  gives  a  discretionary  power  to 
any  person  to  be  exercised  upon  his  own  opinion  of  the  facts, 
he  is  to  be  considered  the  sole  and  exclusive  judge  of  the  exis- 
tence of  those  facts,22  and  the  President's  decision  as  to  the 
necessity  for  a  call  for  the  militia  is  conclusive  upon  all  other 
persons    and    all    other    departments    of    government.23     The 

14  United  States  v.  Cutter,  2  Curt.  617,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,911. 

15  Jecker  v.  Montgomery,  13  How.  515,  14  L.  ed.  240. 

16  Prize  Cases,  2  Black,  668,  17  L.  ed.  459. 

17  Parker  v.  United  States,  1  Pet.  296,  7  L.  ed.  150. 

18  United  States  v.  Speed,  8  Wall.  82,  19  L.  ed.  449. 

19  United  States  v.  Jones,  18  How.  96,  15  L.  ed.  274. 

20  American  Ins.  Co.  v.  Cotton,  1  Pet.  542,  7  L.  ed.  242;  Martin 
v.  Mott,  12  Wheat.   19,  6  L.  ed.  537. 

21  Martin  v.  Mott,  12  Wheat.  29,  6  L.  ed.  537;  Prize  Cases,  2  Black, 
670,  17  L.  ed.  459;  McCall  v.  McDowell,  1  Abb.  U.  S.  219,  Deady,  233, 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  8673;  Dreucker  v.  Salomon,  21  Wis.  621. 

22  Martin  v.  Mott,  12  Wheat.  31.  6  L.  ed.  537;  Luther  v.  Borden, 
7  How.  43,  45,  12  L.  ed.  581;  Ex  parte  Field,  5  Blatchf.  80,  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  4761. 

23  United  States  v.  Cruikshank,  92  U.  S.  556,  23  L.  ed.  585. 


Art.  II,  §  2,  CI.  1     Conquest  of  Territory.  472 

President  may  call  forth  the  militia  to  suppress  an  insurrec- 
tion upon  the  application  of  a  state.24 

Conquest  and  Government  of  Conquered  Territory. 

In  his  capacity  as  commander-in-chief,  the  President  may 
order  the  invasion  of  the  enemy's  territory;  but  such  conquests 
cannot  enlarge  the  boundaries  of  the  Union.25  According  to 
the  usages  of  nations,  if  a  nation  be  not  entirely  subdued  by 
another,  the  holding  of  conquered  territory  is  to  be  deemed  a 
mere  military' occupation  until  its  status  is  determined  by  the 
treaty  of  peace,26  and  the  military  may  hold  and  occupy  con- 
quered territory  'without  incorporation  so  long  as  it  may  seem 
appropriate  to  Congress.27  Where  territory  is  ceded  by  a  treaty 
of  peace  the  occupation  is  confirmed,28  but  the  territory  thus 
acquired  becomes  appurtenant  to  and  not  a  part  of  the  United 
States;  actual  incorporation  as  a  part  of  the  nation  can  follow 
only  after  the  action  of  Congress.20 

It  is  the  duty  of  the  President  so  long  as  war  continues  Co 
provide  for  the  security  of  persons  and  property  in  territory 
taken  from  the  enemy's  control,30  and  to  this  end  he  may  in- 
stitute a  temporary  military  government,31  which  will  continue 
to  be  a  valid  government  until  the  ratification  of  a  treaty  of 
peace  and  the  provision  by  Congress  for  the  formation  of  an- 
other government.32  The  establishment  of  provisional  courts 
is  a  part  of  this  power,33  as  also  is  the  collection  of  duties  in 

24  Luther  v.  Borden,  7  How.  43,  12  L.  ed.  581;  United  States  v. 
Cruikshank,  92  TJ.  S.  556,  23  L.  ed.  5S8. 

25  Fleming  v.  Page,  9  How.  615,  13  L.  ed.  276;  New  Orleans  v. 
Steamship  Co.,  20  Wall.  398,  22  L.  ed.  354. 

26  American  Ins.  Co.  v.  Cotton,  1  Pet.  542,  7  L.  ed.  242.  And  see 
United  States  v.  Huckabee,  16  Wall.  434,  21  L.  ed.  457. 

27  Downes  v.  Bidwell,  182  U.  S.  342,  21  S.  Ct.  783,  45  L.  ed.  10S8. 

28  American  Ins.  Co.  v.  Cotton,  1  Pet.  542,  7  L.  ed.  242. 

29  Downes  v.  Bidwell,  182  U.  S.  342,  21  S.  Ct.  783,  45  L.  ed.  108S. 

30  The  Grapeshot,  9  Wall.  132,  19  L.  ed.  651;  Texas  v.  White,  7 
Wall.  730,  19  L.  ed.  227. 

31  Texas  v.  White,  7  Wall.  730,  19  L.  ed.  227. 

32  Cross  v.  Harrison,  16  How.  191,  14  L.  ed.  889. 

33  The  Grapeshot,  9  Wall.  132,  19  L.  ed.  651;  Burke  v.  Miltenberger, 
19  Wall.  525,  22  L.  ed.  158;  Mechanics'  etc.  Bank  v.  Union  Bank,  22 


473  Conquest  of  Territory.     Art.  II,  §  2,  CI.  1 

the  conquered  territory.34  The  power  must  he  exercised  in 
subordination  to  the  constitution.35  It  does  not  extend  to  the 
repeal  or  contradiction  of  existing  statutes  or  to  the  making 
of  provisions  of  a  legislative  nature.36 

In  all  cases  of  conquest  among  civilized  countries,  having 
established  laws  of  property,  laws,  usages  and  municipal  regu- 
lations remain  in  force  until  changed  by  the  new  sovereign,37 
and  where  neither  the  President  nor  Congress  dissolves  the 
civil  government  established  in  the  exercise  of  provisional 
rights  the  inference  is  that  it  was  intended  to  be  continued.38 
Eights  of  property  of  persons  in  conquered  territory  must  re- 
main unimpaired.39  So,  also,  private  relations  continue  in 
force  except  so  far  as  they  conflict  with  the  constitution.49 

When  a  sfate  government  is  overthrown  by  rebellion,  the 
President,  on  obtaining  possession  of  the  territory,  may  ap- 
point a  military  governor,41  and  all  of  his  powers  may  be  dele- 
gated to  such  governor.42  A  military  governor's  authority  is 
absolute  as  regards  administration,  and  his  legislative  powers 
are  limited  by  strict  necessity.43     He  may  create  courts  for  the 

Wall.  296,  22  L.  ed.  871;  Lewis  v.  Cocks,  23  Wall.  469,  23  L.  ed.  70; 
Kimball  v.  Taylor,  2  Woods,  37,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7775;  United  States  v. 
Reiter,  27  Fed.  Cas.  772;  Armistead  v.  State,  43  Ala.  340;  Heffernian 
v.  Porter,  6  Cold.  396,  98  Am.  Dec.  462. 

34  Cross  v.  Harrison,  16  How.  164,  14  L.  ed.  8S9;  Downes  v.  Bid- 
well,  182  U.  S.  346,  21  S.  Ct.  783,  45  L.  ed.  10SS. 

35  Scott  v.  Bilgerry,  40  Miss.  119. 

36  6  Opin.  Atty.  Gen.  10. 

37  United  States  v.  Powers'  Heirs,  11  How.  577,  13  L.  ed.  817 j 
Coleman  v.  Tennessee,  97  U.  S.  517,  24  L.  ed.  1118;  Ketchum  v.  Buck- 
ley, 99  U.  S.  190,  25  L.  ed.  473. 

38  Cross  v.  Harrison,  16  How.  191,  14  L.  ed.  889. 

39  Johnson  v.  Mcintosh,  8  Wheat.  589,  5  L.  ed.  681;  Leitensdorfer 
v.  Webb,  20  How.  177,  15  L.  ed.  891;  United  States  v.  Repentigny, 
5  Wall.  260,  IS  L.  ed.  627. 

40  Leitensdorfer  v.  Webb,  20  How.  177,  15  L.  ed.  891. 

41  Texas  v.  White,  7  Wall.  730,  19  L.  ed.  227;  Mechanics'  etc.  Bank 
v.  Union  Bank,  22  Wall.  296,  22  L.  ed.  871;  Eutledge  v.  Fogg,  3  Cold. 
554,  91  Am.  Dec.  299. 

42  Scott  v.  Bilgerry,  40  Miss.  119. 

43  Dooley  v.  United  States,  182  U.  S.  234,  21  S.  Ct.  762,  45  L.  ed. 


Art.  II,  §  2,  CI.  1  Martial  Law.  474 

administration  of  justice,44  and  may  appoint  judges  with  au- 
thority to  hold  such  courts.45  The  appointment  of  a  provi- 
sional judge  is  subject  to  revocation  by  the  governor  or  his  suc- 
cessor, and  his  judicial  authority  ceases  when  the  necessity  for 
it  ceases.46  A  commandant  cannot  annul  a  decree  of  a  court 
within  its  jurisdiction.47  The  ordinances  of  a  provisional 
government  supersede  institutions  of  the  conquered  territory 
which  are  incompatible  with  them,  and  the  authority  of  that 
government  does  not  cease  until  terminated  by  direct  legisla- 
tion.48 The  President  may  adopt  means  to  enable  the  people 
in  a  seceding  state  which  has  been  subdued  by  conquest  to  meet 
in  convention  for  the  formation  of  a  new  state  government.49 

It  is  for  the  political  department  alone  to  say  how  long  mili- 
tary occupation  shall  be  necessary;  the  courts  cannot  determine 
that  question.50 

Martial  Law.* 

Martial  law  is  the  law  of  military  necessity  in  the  actual 
presence  of  war;51  it  is  the  law  of  force  applied  where  civil 
law  is  suspended  by  force,52  and  finds  its  justification  only 
where,  from  actual  invasion  or  civil  war,  the  courts  are  closed 
and  it  is  impossible  to  administer  justice  according  to  law.53 

1074;  Armstrong  v.  United  States,  182  U.  S.  243,  21  S.  Ct.  S27,  45 
L.  ed.  1086. 

44  Pennywit  v  Eaton,  15  Wall.  384,  21  L.  ed.  114;  Mechanics'  etc. 
Bank  v.  Union  Bank,  22  Wall.  296.,  22  L.  ed.  S71. 

45  Pennywit  v.  E^ton,  15  Wall.  384,  21  L.  ed.  114;  Mechanics'  etc. 
Bank  v.  Union  Bank,  22  Wall.  297,  22  L.  ed.  871. 

46  Handlin  v.   Wickliffe,   12   Wall.   175,   20  L.   ed.   365. 

47  Baymond  v.  Thomas,  91  U.  S.  716,  23  L.  ed.  434. 

48  Leitensdorfer  v.    Webb,   20   How.   176,   15  L.   ed.   891. 

49  Ex  parte  Hughes,  Phill.  (N.  C.)    57. 

r,o  Neely  v.  Henkel,  180  U.  S.  124,  21  S.  Ct.  302,  45  L.  ed.  448. 

51  United  States  v.  Diekelman,  92  U.  S.  526,  23  L.  ed.  742;  Grove 
v.  Mott,  46  N.  J.  L.  328,  50  Am.  Dec.  424. 

52  Griffin  v.  Wilcox,  21  Ind.  370. 

53  Ex  parte  Milligan,  4  Wall.  127,  18  T,  ed.  281;  Winter  v.  Dicker- 
son    42  Ala.  98;  Johnson  v.  Jones,  44  HI.  142;  Skeen  v.  Monkheimer, 


*  See,  also,  art.  I,  §  9,  cl.  2. 


475  Martial  Law.  Art.  II,  §  2,  CI.  1 

It  exists  only  in  case  of  necessity,54  and  its  duration  is  limited 
by  its  necessity.55  It  cannot  arise  from  threatened  invasion.50 
but  from  the  fact  of  the  existence  of  invasion  or  immediately 
impending  force  at  a  given  place  and  time.57  It  is  limited  to 
those  places  within  the  theater  of  Avar,  or  its  vicinity58 — the 
precise  limits  to  be  determined  according  to  the  circumstances 
of  each  case.59 

The  recognition  of  the  existence  of  a  state  of  affairs  necessi- 
tating martial  law  is  a  part  of  the  war  power  of  the  Presi- 
dent,60 and  it  is  for  him  to  determine  when,  in  case  of  insur- 
rection, the  United  States  should  interfere.61  After  the  insur- 
rection is  suppressed  and  a  provisional  government  established, 
and  a  state  constitution  adopted,  a  citizen  cannot  be  tried  in  a 
military  court  for  an  alleged  crime.62  During  the  Eebellion 
the  President  had  no  power  to  arrest  and  imprison  any  person 
not  subject  to  military  law  without  process  of  a  court;63  but 
a  general  order  of  the  President  authorizing  the  arrest  of  per- 
sons absenting  themselves  to  avoid  draft  was  valid.64  When, 
during  the  Civil  War,  the  United  States  forces  were  in  the 
enemy's  country,  military  tribunals  had  exclusive  jurisdiction 
to  try  and  punish  offenses  of  every  grade  committed  by  per- 
sons in  the  military  service;65  but  the  military  commission  was 
without  jurisdiction  to  try  and  sentence  a  person  not  a  membex 
of  the  military  or  naval  forces,  and  who  at  the  time  of  his 

21  Ind.  1;  Griffin  v.  Wilcox,  21  Ind.  370;  Grove  v.  Mott,  46  N.  J.  L. 
328,  50  Am.  Dec.  424;  In  re  Kemp,  16  Wis.  359. 

54  Ex  parte  Eagan,  5  Blatchf.  319. 

55  Ex  parte  Milligan,  4  Wall.  127,  18  L.  eel.  281. 

56  Ex  parte  Milligan,  4  Wall.   127,  18  L.  ed.   2SL 

57  Griffin  v.  Wilcox,  21  Ind.   370. 

58  Ex  parte  Milligan,  4  Wall.  120,  18  L.  ed.  281;  Jones  v.  Seward, 
40  Barb.  563;  In  re  Kemp,  16  Wis.  359. 

59  In  re  Kemp,  16  Wis.   359. 

60  Griffin  v.  Wilcox,  21  Ind.  370. 

61  Luther  v.  Borden,  7  How.  43,  12  L.  ed.  581. 

62  Ex  parte  Eagan,  5  Blatchf.   319. 

63  Jones  v.  Seward,  40  Barb.  563. 

64  Allen  v.  Colby,  47  N.  H.  544. 

65  Coleman  v.  Tennessee,  97  U.  S.  515,  24  L.  ed.  1118. 


Art.  II,  §  2,  CI.  1         Power  to  Pardon.  476 

arrest  was  a  resident  of  a  loyal  state  where  the  courts  were 
open.66  The  state  courts  have  no  authority  by  habeas  corpus 
over  persons  held  by  the  authority  of  the  United  States.67 

The  Power  to  Pardon. 

A  pardon  is  an  act  of  grace,  proceeding  from  the  executive, 
exempting  the  person  pardoned  from  the  punishment  which  the 
Jaw  inflicts  for  the  crime  he  has  committed.68  The  supreme 
court  adopts  the  English  principles  regarding  the  operation  and 
effect  of  a  pardon,63  and  the  word  "pardon"  as  used  in  this 
clause  must  be  given  the  same  meaning  as  prevailed  in  the 
United  States  and  England  at  the  time  the  constitution  was 
adopted.70  There  is  no  legal  distinction  between  the  terms 
"amnesty"  and  "pardon,"71  and  the  phrase  "to  grant  reprieves 
and  pardons"  includes  the  right  to  grant  amnesty.7-  The 
President  in  the  exercise  of  his  power  to  pardon  may  act  im- 
mediately or  may  first  refer  cases  to  the  executive  depart- 
ments.73 

The  power  to  grant  reprieves  and  pardons,  except  in  cases  of 
impeachment,  is  unlimited,  and  is  not  subject  to  the  control 
of  Congress  in  any    way.74     It  is    vested    exclusively  in  the 

06  Ex  parte  Million,  4  Wall.  130,  18  L.  ed.  281. 

67  Tarble's   Case,  13  Wall.  397,  20  L.  ed.  597. 

68  United  States  v.  Wilson,  7  Pet.  160,  8  L.  ed.  640;  Boyd  r. 
United  States,  142  U.  S.  454,  12  S.  Ct.  294,  35  L.  ed.  1077;  In  re 
Greathouse,  4  Saw.  499,  Abb.  TJ.  S.  3S2,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5741;  Single- 
ton v.  State,  38  Fla.  300,  21  South.  22,  56  Am.  St.  Eep.  179,  34  L. 
B.  A.  251;  Easterwood  v.  State,  34  Tex.  Cr.  409,  31  S.  W.  296. 

69  United  States  v.  Wilson,  7  Pet.  1C0,  8  L.  ed.  640;  United  States 
v.  Harris,  1  Abb.  U.  S.  114,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,312. 

70  Ex  parte  Wells,  18  How.  311,  15  L.  ed.  421;  United  States  v. 
Athens  Armory,  2  Abb.  U.  S.  150,  35  Ga.  344,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,473; 
Pollock  v.  Steamboat  Laura,  5  Fed.  136;  People  v.  Bowen,  3  Cal. 
442,  13  Am.  Eep.  150. 

71  Knote  v.  United  States,  95  U.  S.  152,  24  L.  ed.  442;  Brown  v. 
Walker,  161  U.  S.  601,  16  S.  Ct.  648,  40  L.  ed.  819. 

72  United  States,  v.  Klein,  13  Wall.  142,  20  L.  ed.  519. 

73  Anonymous,  14  Opin.  Atty.  Gen.  20. 

74  Ex  parte  Garland,  4  Wall.  380,  18  L.  ed.  366. 


477  Power  to  Pardon.  Art.  II,  §  2,  CI.  1 

President75  and  continues  so  long  as  any  legal  consequences 
of  the  offense  remain,76  and  an  act  which  impairs  the  effect  of 
a  pardon  hy  the  President  is  void.77  Congress  cannot  provide 
for  the  remission  of  penalties  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury.78 The  power  may  be  exercised  as  well  before  trial  as 
after  conviction,79  or  after  expiration  of  part  of  the  sentence,80 
and  includes  the  power  to  commnte  the  sentence.81  The 
power  extends  to  all  kinds  of  pardons  known  to  the  law  as 
such,82  either  general,  special  or  particular,  conditional  or  ab- 
solute, or  statutory,  not  necessary  in  some  cases,  and  in  some 
grantable  of  course.83  Being  an  act  of  grace,  limitations 
should  be  strictly  construed.84  The  President  has  no  power  to 
relieve  from  imprisonment  judges  of  a  county  court  who  have 
been  committed  for  contempt  for  refusing  to  obey  a  mandamus 
directed  against  them.85 

A  person  receiving  full  pardon  for  his  acts  is  not  to  be  ex- 
cluded from  any  rights  or  privileges  or  subjected  to  any  pun- 
ishment for  such  acts,  and  so  cannot  be  affected  by  any  act  of 
Congress  having  such  a  purpose.86  While,  however,  this  power 
of  the  President  is  exclusive,  and  not  to  be  restricted  by  Con- 
gress,87 yet  it  does  not  preclude  the  passage  by  Congress  of  an 
act  of  general  amnesty.88     A  pardon  for  participating  in  Re- 

75  United  States  v.  Klein,  13  Wall.  147,  20  L.  ed.  519. 

76  Stetler's  Case,  Phill.   (N.  C)    302. 

77  Klein's  Case,  7  Ct.  of  CI.  240;  Witkowski's  Case,  7  Ct.  of  CI. 
393. 

7S  The  Laura,  114  U.  S.  414,  5  S.  Ct.  881,  29  L.  ed.  147. 

79  Anonymous,  6  Opin.  Atty.  Gen.  20. 

80  Stetler's  Case,  Phill.   (N.  C.)    302. 

81  Ex  parte  Wells,  18  How.  309,  15  L.  ed.  421. 

82  Ex  parte  Wells,  18  How.  311,  15  L.  ed.  421;  Ex  parte  Garland, 
4  Wall.   380,  IS  L.   ed.  366. 

S3  Ex  parte  Garland,  4  Wall.  380,  18  L.  ed.  366;  United  States  v. 
Padelford,  9  Wall.  542,  19  L.  ed.  788. 

84  Osborn  v.  United  States,  91  U.  S.  478,  23  L.  ed.  3S8. 

85  In  re  Nevitt,  117  Fed.  622. 

86  Ex  parte  Garland,  4  Wall.  381,  18  L.  ed.  366. 

S7  Ex  parte  Garland,  4  Wall.  380,  18  L.  ed.  366;  United  States  v. 
Klein,  13  Wall.  128,  20  L.  ed.  519. 

88  Brown  v.  Walker,  161  U.  S.  601,  16  S.  Ct.  648,  40  L.  ed.  819. 


Art.  II,  §  2,  CI.  1         Effect  of  Pardon.  478 

hellion  docs  not  authorize  the  payment  of  a  claim  which  Con- 
gress has  forbidden.89 

A  pardon  may  be  absolute  or  conditional,90  or  it  may  be  spe- 
cial and  subject  to  exceptions.91  A  pardon  granted  on  con- 
ditions blots  out  the  offense  on  proof  of  compliance  with  the 
conditions.92  The  acceptance  by  a  convict  condemned  to  death 
of  a  pardon  conditioned  on  life  imprisonment  is  binding,93  and 
it  cannot  be  avoided  on  the  ground  that  it  was  obtained  by 
duress.94  A  pardon  conditioned  that  recipient  shall  claim  no 
property,  or  proceeds,  sold  by  a  court  under  confiscation  pro- 
ceedings does  not  preclude  a  claim  for  the  proceeds  of  a  mort- 
gage on  bonds  paid  into  court.95 

Effect  of  Pardon. 


A  pardon  is  a  deed,  to  the  validity  of  which  delivery  is  es- 
sential, and  delivery  is  not  complete  without  acceptance,96  and 
a  pardon  by  an  outgoing  President  may  be  revoked  by  his 
successor  before  delivery.97  The  effect  of  a  pardon  is  such 
that  in  law  the  offender  is  as  innocent  as  if  he  had  never  com- 
mitted the  offense;98  in  legal  contemplation  it  obliterates  the 
offense.99  The  power  to  pardon  carries  with  it  power  to  re- 
lease from  fines,  penalties  and  forfeitures  accruing  from  the 

89  Hart  v.  United  States,  118  TJ.  S.  65,  6  S.  Ct.  961,  30  L.  ed.  916. 

oo  United  States  v.  Wilson,  7  Pet.  161,  8  L.  ed.  640;  Ex  parte 
Hunt,  10  Ark.  2S8;  Ex  parte  Hawkins,  61  Ark.  324,  54  Am.  St.  Eep. 
210,  33  S.  W.  106,  30  L.  E.  A.  736. 

91  Semmes  v.  United  States,  91  U.  S.  27,  23  L.  ed.  193. 

92  United  States  v.  Klein,  13  Wall.  142,  20  L.  ed.  519. 

93  In  re  Boss,  140  U.  S.  4S0,  11  S.  Ct.  897,  35  L.  ed.  5S1. 

94  Ex  parte  Wells,  18  How.  315,  15  L.  ed.  421. 

95  Osborn  v.  United  States,  91  U.  S.  477,  23  L.  ed.  388. 

96  United  States  v.  Wilson,  7  Pet.  161,  8  L.  ed.  640.  See  Ex 
parte  Powell,  73  Ala.  519,  49  Am.  Eep.  73,  where  delivery  to  warden 
was  held  to  be  delivery  to  prisoner. 

97  In  re  Du  Puy,  3  Ben.  316. 

98  United  States  v.  Padelford,  9  Wall.  542,  19  L.  ed.  788. 

99  Carlisle  v.  United  States,  16  Wall.  151,  21  L.  ed.  426;  Ex  parte 
Garland,  4  Wall.  333,  18  L.  ed.  366;  United  States  v.  Klein,  13  Wall. 
128,  20  L.  ed.  519. 


479  Effect  of  Pardon.         Art.  II,  §  2,  CI.  1 

offense;100  but  a  pardon  can  give  no  relief  for  what  has  already- 
been  suffered,  and  while  the  executive  may  restore  mone}r  in  his 
immediate  control,  the  pardon  cannot  give  any  right  to  pro- 
ceeds of  property  already  paid  into  the  United  States  treas- 
ury.101 

A  pardon  obliterates  the  offense  and  carries  a  release  of  pen- 
alties so  tar  as  is  in  the  power  of  the  government,  unless  re- 
strained by  the  instrument  of  pardon;102  but  it  cannot  impair 
the  rights  of  others  to  the  offender's  property  which  has  been 
forfeited.103  Nor  can  a  pardon  restore  a  forfeited  office.104 
So  a  general  pardon  and  amnesty  does  not  entitle  the  recipient 
to  the  proceeds  of  property  previously  condemned  and  sold 
under  the  confiscation  acts;105  but  a  person,  after  pardon,  may 
dispose  of  the  fee  remaining  in  him  after  the  sale  of  his  con- 
fiscated life  estate.106  Belief  from  the  payment  of  taxes  as- 
sessed for  a  violation  of  the  revenue  laws  is  not  embraced  in  a 
general  pardon  for  the  offense,  nor  does  it  cancel  the  for- 
feiture.107 A  pardon  does  not  work  a  remission  of  a  forfeit- 
ure on  a  bail  bond,108  although  the  sureties  on  the  bail  bond 
of  a  party  convicted  of  a  violation  of  the  revenue  laws  are  re- 
leased from  further  liability  by  a  pardon  of  their  principal.109 

100  Osborn  v.  United  States,  91  U.  S.  478,  23  L.  ed.  388;  United 
States  v.  Harris,  1  Abb.  U.  S.  114,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,312;  United 
States  v.  Lancaster,  4  Wash.  C.  C.  66,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,557;  The 
Hollen,  1  Mason,  431,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6608;  State  v.  Farley,  8  Blackf. 
(Ind.)  229;  State  v.  Simpson,  1  Bailey,  378;  In  re  Flourney,  1  Kelly 
(Ga.),  606;  State  v.  McO'Blenis,  21  Mo.  272,  69  Am.  Dec.  435; 
Playford  v.  Commonwealth,  4  Pa.  St.  144;  State  v.  Williams,  1  Nott 
&  McC.  26. 

101  Knote  v.  United  States,  95  U.  S.  154,  24  L.  ed.  442;  Fischel  v. 
Mills,  55  Ark.  346,  18  S.  W.  237,  15  L.  E.  A.  395. 

102  Osborn  v.  United  States,  91  U.  S.  477,  23  L.  ed.  388. 

103  Osborn  v.  United  States,  91  U.  S.  477,  23  L.  ed.  3S8;  Knote 
v.  United  States,  95  U.  S.  154,  24  L.  ed.  442. 

104  Ex  parte   Garland,  4  Wall.    3S1,   18  L.   ed.   366. 

105  Knote  v.  United  States,  95  U.  S.  153,  24  L.  ed.  442. 

106  Illinois  Central  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Bosworth,  133  U.  S-  104,  10  S. 
Ct.  234,  33  L.  ed.  550. 

107  Ex  parte  Weimer,  8  Biss.  325. 

108  Columbian  Ins.*  Co.  v.  Ashley,  4  Pet.  144,  7  L.  ed.  809. 

109  United  States  v.  Cullerton,  8  Biss.  171,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,899. 


Art.  II,  §  2,  CI.  1        Effect  of  Pardon.  480 

A  general  pardon  restores  to  all  civil  rights;  e.  g.,  compe- 
tency as  a  witness;110  competency  as  a  juror;111  the  right  to 
vote.112  A  full  pardon  removes  all  disabilities  attendant  on 
conviction,113  and  this  has  been  held  to  be  so  notwithstanding 
the  pardon  was  obtained  by  fraud.114  A  pardon  removes  the 
record  of  a  felony  conviction  as  the  basis  of  disbarment  pro- 
ceedings against  an  attorney.115  A  conditional  pardon  does  not 
restore  the  competency  of  the  person  pardoned  as  a  witness.116 
The  recital  in  a  pardon  that  it  was  requested  to  restore  the  com- 
petency of  a  person  as  a  witness  does  not  alter  the  fact  that 
the  pardon  was,  as  stated  in  it,  full  and  unconditional.117  An 
additional  punishment  cannot  be  inflicted  for  a  second  offense  if 
the  first  was  pardoned;118  but  while  the  pardon  relieves  guilt, 
it  does  not  remove  the  fact  of  conviction,  which  may  be  shown 
against  character.119  The  amnesty  proclamation  extended  to 
aliens  domiciled  in  the  rebel  states.120 

no  Boyd  v.  United  States,  142  U.  S.  454,  12  S.  Ct.  294,  35  L.  ed. 
1077;  Hunnicutt  v.  State,  18  Tex.  App.  519,  51  Am.*  Eep.  333;  Single- 
ton v.  State,  38  Fto,  302,  56  Am.  St.  Eep.  180,  21  South.  22,  34  L.  E. 
A.  251. 

ill  United  States  v.  Bassetts,  5  Utah,  133,  13  Pac.  239;  Easterwood 
v.  State,  34  Tex.  Cr.  409,  31  S.  W.  296. 

112  Cowan  v.  Prowse,  93  Ky.  172,  19  S.  W.  411;  Jones  v.  Board  of 
Eegistrars,  56.  Miss.  768,  31  Am.  Eep.  386. 

113  Wood  v.  Fitzgerald,  3  Or.  576;  Edwards  v.  Commonwealth,  78 
Va.  42,  49  Am.  Eep.  379. 

114  Knapp  v.  Thomas,  39  Ohio  St.  381,  48  Am.  Eep.  462. 

115  Scott  v.  State,  6  Tex.  Civ.  App.  348,  25  S.  W.  339.  But  see 
In  re  Attorney,  86  N.  Y.  569. 

lie  Carr  v.  State,  19  Tex.  App.  660,  53  Am.  Eep.  396, 

117  Boyd  v.  United  States,  142  U.  S.  453,  12  S.  Ct.  294,  35  L.  ei. 
1077. 

118  Edwards  v.  Commonwealth,  78  Va.  43,  49  Am.  Eep.  379. 
no  In  re  Spenser,  5  Saw.  199,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,234. 

120  Carlisle  v.  United  States,  16  Wall.  148,  21  L.  ed.  426. 


481  Treaty  Power.  Art.  II,  §  2,  CI.  2 

2.  He  shall  have  power,  by  and  with  the  advice  and 
consent  of  the  Senate,  to  make  treaties,  provided  two- 
thirds  of  the  Senators  present  concur;  and  he  shall  nom- 
inate, and  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the 
Senate,  shall  appoint  ambassadors,  other  public  minis- 
ters and  consuls,  Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court,  and  all 
other  officers  of  the  United  States,  whose  appointments 
are  not  herein  otherwise  provided  for,  and  which  shall 
be  established  by  law:  but  the  Congress  may  by  law 
vest  the  appointment  of  such  inferior  officers  as  they 
think  proper,  in  the  President  alone,  in  the  courts  of  law 
or  in  the  heads  of  departments. 

Treaty  Power. 

A  treaty  is  in  the  nature  of  a  contract  between  two  nations, 
to  be  carried  into  execution  by  the  sovereign  power  of  the  re- 
spective parties;1  but  while  a  treaty  is  a  contract,  in  the 
United  States  it  is  like  an  act  of  Congress,  in  that  the  courts 
must  take  judicial  notice  of  it.2  A  treaty  is  the  supreme  law 
of  the  land,3  and  where  self-operative  is  equivalent  to  an  act  of 
the  legislature,4  and  forms  a  rule  of  decision  in  all  courts.5 
The  courts  of  justice  must  interpret  and  administer  a  treaty  ac- 
cording to  its  terms,  and  they  cannot  annul  or  disregard  any  of 

1  Foster  v.  Neilson,  2  Pet.  314,  7  L.  ed.  415;  Goetze  v.  United 
States,  103  Fed.  72. 

2  United  States  v.  Kauscher,  119  U.  S.  418,  7  S.  Ct.  234,  30  L.  ed. 
425. 

3  Fairfax  v.  Hunter,  7  Cr.  627,  3  L.  ed.  453;  American  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Cotton,  1  Pet.  543;  7  L.  ed.  242;  Chew  Heong  v.  United  States,  112 
U.  S.  540,  5  S.  Ct.  255,  28  L.  ed.  770;  In  re  Cooper,  143  U.  S.  502, 
12  S.  Ct.  453,  36  L.  ed.  232;  Opel  v.  Shoup,  100  Iowa,  424,  69  N.  W. 
563,  37  L.  K.  A.  583;  Wunderle  v.  Wunderle,  144  111.  54,  33  N.  E. 
197;  Succession  of  Kabasse,  47  La.  Ann.  1452,  49  Am.  St.  Kep.  433, 
17  South.  867. 

4  Foster  v.  Neilson,  2  Pet.  314,  7  L.  ed.  415;  Pollard  v.  Kibbe,  It 
Pet.  412,  10  L.  ed.  490;  United  States  v.  Forty-three  Gallons 
of  Whisky,  93  U.  S.  193,  23  L.  ed.  846. 

5  Strother  v.  Lucas,  12  Pet.  439,  9  L.  ed.  1137. 

Notes  on  Constitution — 31 


Art.  II,  §  2,  CI.  2  Treaty  Powek.      ■  482 

its  terms;6  they  must  obey  its  mandates  even  though  litigation 
already  in  court  is  affected  and  reversal  of  a  judgment  below 
becomes  necessary.7 

The  power  to  make  treaties  is  vested  by  this  clause  in  the 
President  and  Senate,8  and  extends  to  the  making  of  treaties 
on  all  subjects  not  inconsistent  with  the  nature  of  the  general 
government  or  its  relations  with  the  states.9  With  few  ex- 
ceptions, the  power  is  unlimited,  extending  to  all  proper  sub- 
jects of  negotiation,10  and  covering  all  the  usual  subjects  of  di- 
plomacy with  different  powers;11  e.  g.,  the  acquisition  of  prop- 
erty belonging  to  the  citizens  of  each  in  the  territory  of  they 
other;12  provision  for  inheritance  by  aliens;13  the  establishment 
of  consular  tribunals;14  the  acquisition  of  territory;15  the 
settlement  of  boundaries;16  the  granting  and  acceptance  of 
awards  for  injuries  committed;17  the  conferring  of  citizenship 
on  Indians.18     The  power  to  make  treaties  is  plenary.19 

6  Doe  v.  Braden,  16  How.  657,  14  L.  ed.  1090. 

7  "United  States  v.  Schooner  Peggy,  1  Cr.  109,  2  L.  ed.  49;  Martin 
v.  Hunter,  1  Wheat.  370,  4  L.  ed.  97. 

8  New  York  Indians  v.  United  States,  170  U.  S.  23,  18  S.  Ct.  531, 
42  L.  ed.  427. 

9  Holden  v.  Joy,  17  Wall.  243,  21  L.  ed.  523. 

io   Geofroy  v.  Riggs,  133  U.  S.  266,  10  S.  Ct.  295,  33  L.  ed.  642. 
ii  "United  States  v.  Forty-three  Gallons  of  Whisky,  93  U.  S.  197, 
23  L.  ed.  846. 

12  United  States  v.  Forty-three  Gallons  of  Whisky,  93  U.  S.  197, 
23  L.  ed.  846. 

13  Geofroy  v.  Riggs,  133  U.  S.  266,  10  S.  Ct.  295,  33  L.  ed.  64*; 
Bohuaud  v.  Bize,  105  Fed.  485. 

14  In  re  Ross,  140  U.  S.  463,  11  S.  Ct.  897,  35  L.  ed.  581. 

15  American  Ins.  Co.  v.  Cotton,  1  Pet.  511,  7  L.  ed.  242;  Dred  Scott 
v.  Sandford,  19  How.  393,  15  L.  ed.  691;  Holden  v.  Joy,  17  Wall. 
247,  21  L.  ed.  523;  De  Lima  v.  Bidwell,  182  U.  S.  197,  21  S.  Ct.  743, 
45  L.  ed.  1041;  Fourteen  Diamond  Rings  v.  United  States,  183  U.  S. 
181,  22  S.  Ct.  59,  46  L.  ed.  138;  Do^vncs  v.  Bidwell,  182  U.  S.  341, 
21  S.  Ct.  770,  45  L.  ed.  1088. 

10  Garcia  v.  Lee,  12  Pet.  515,  9  L.  ed.  1176;  Rhode  Island  v. 
Massachusetts,  12  Pet.  725,  9  L.  ed.  1233;  United  States  v.  Texas,  162 
U.  S.  38,  16  S.  Ct.  725,  40  L.  ed.  867. 

17  Frevail  v.  Bache,  14  Pet.  97,  10  L.  ed.   369;  United  States  v. 


483  Treaty  Power.  Art.  II,  §  2,  CI.  2 

The  recognition  and  enforcement  of  the  principles  of  public 
law  are  the  ordinary  subjects  of  treaties,20  but  the  political 
rights  of  the  people  of  the  several  states,  as  such  are  not  the  sub- 
ject of  treaty  stipulations.21  A  treaty  enabling  aliens  to  pur- 
chase and  hold  lands  is  valid.22  A  judicial  system  may  be 
created  by  treaty.23  While  Indian  tribes  are  not  to  be  con- 
sidered as  foreign  nations,24  they  are  to  be  deemed  alien,  auton- 
omous bodies  for  the  purpose  of  negotiations  with  the  United 
States  by  treaty.25 

By  this  clause  the  President  is  made  the  only  legitimate 
agent  of  the  government  to  open  and  carry  on  correspondence 
with  foreign  nations  in  matters  concerning  the  interests  of  the 
country  or  its  citizens  and  this  duty  is  in  his  discretion.26  So 
citizens  abroad  must  look  to  the  President  for  protection  or  re- 
lief.27 A  treaty  cannot,  however,  deprive  Congress  of  any  part 
of  its  legislative  power,23  and  while  a  treaty  may  supersede 

Weld,  127  TJ.  S.  57,  8  S.  Ct.  1000,  32  L.  ed.  6,2;  Bachman  v.  Lawsou, 
109  TJ.  S.  660,  3  S.  Ct.  479,  27  L.  ed.  1067. 

18  Cross  v.  Harrison,  16  How.  164,  14  L.  ed.  889;  United  States 
v.  Rhodes,  1  Abb.  U.  S.  43,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,151. 

19  Holmes  v.  Jennison,  14  Pet.  540,  10  L.  ed.  579;  United  States 
v.  Forty-three  Gallons  of  Whisky,  93  U.  S.  188,  23  L.  ed.  846;  People 
v.  Gerke,  5  Cal.  381. 

20  People  v.  Curtis,  50  N.  T.  321,  10  Am.  Rep.  483. 

21  License  Cases,  5  How.  504,  12  L.  ed.  256. 

22  Chirac  v.  Chirac,  2  Wheat.  259,  4  L.  ed.  234. 

23  Forbes  v.   Scannell,  13  Cal.  242. 

24  Cherokee  Nation  v.  Georgia,  5  Pet.  17,  8  L.  ed.  25;  Worcester 
v.  Georgia,  6  Pet.  555,  8  L.  ed.  483;  Mackey  v.  Coxe,  18  How.  103,  15 
L.  ed.  299;  Elk  v.  Wilkins,  112  U.  S.  102,  5  S.  Ct.  41,  28  L.  ed.  643; 
United  States  v.  Kagama,  118  U.  S.  379,  6  S.  C.  1109,  30  L.  ed.  228: 
Cherokee  Nation  v.  Kansas  Ry.  Co.,  135  U.  S.  653,  10  S.  Ct.  965, 
34  L.  ed.  295;  Roff  v.  Barney,  168  U.  S.  221,  18  S.  Ct.  60,  42  L.  ed.  442. 

25  Cherokee  Nation  v.  Georgia,  5  Pet.  19,  8  L.  ed.  25;  United 
States  v.  Forty-three  Gallons  of  Whisky,  93  U.  S.  196,  23  L.  ed.  846; 
Choctaw  Nation  v.  United  States,  119  U.  S.  27,  7  S.  Ct.  75,  30  L. 
ed.  306. 

26  Durrand  v.   Hollins,   4  Blatchf.   451,   Fed.   Cas.   No.   4186. 

27  Durrand  v.  Hollins,  4  Blatchf.  451,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4186. 

28  Ware  v.  Hylton,  3  Dall.  199,  1  L.  ed.  568;  Dred  Scott  v.  San- 
ford,  19  How.  629,   15  L.  ed.  691. 


Art.  II,  §  2,  CI.  2  Treaty  Power.  481 

an  act  of  Congress,  a  treaty  may  be  abrogated  by  a  later  act,29 
and  when  the  repugnancy  between  a  treaty  and  a  later  act  of 
Congress  is  clear  the  former  must  yield,30  and  the  courts  are 
bound  to  follow  the  later  act;31  but  the  courts  should  not  con- 
strue an  act  of  Congress  as  modifying  or  annulling  a  treaty 
unless  its  words  clearly  point  to  such  a  construction.32 

So  far  as  treaty  provisions  can  become  subjects  of  judicial 
cognizance  in  the  courts,  they  are  subject  to  such  acts  as  Con- 
gress may  pass  for  their  enforcement,  modification  or  repeal  ;33 
but  Congress  cannot  organize  boards  of  revision  to  annul  titles 
confirmed  under  a  public  treaty.34  The  abrogation  of  a  treaty 
cannot  affect  property  rights  already  vested  under  it.35 

The  treaty-making  clause  of  the  constitution  is  retroactive 
as  well  as  prospective.36  A  treaty  in  order  to  be  binding,  must 
be  within  the  legitimate  powers  vested  by  the  constitution  in 
the  general  government,37  and  a  treaty  in  violation  of  the  con- 
stitution is  of  no  effect.3S  A  treaty  with  a  sovereign  inures  to 
his  successor  in  the  government  of  the  country.39 

29  The  Cherokee  Tobbaco,  11  Wall.  621,  20  L.  ed.  227;  Horner 
v.  United  States,  143  U.  S.  578,  12  S.  Ct.  522,  36.  L.  ed.  266;  Thomas 
v.  Gay,  169  U.  S.  270,18  S.  Ct.  340,  42  L.  ed.  740;  Stephens  v.  Chero- 
kee Nation,  174  U.  S.  483,  19  S.  Ct.  722,  43  L.  ed.  1041;  United 
States    v.  Lee  Yen  Tai,  185  U.  S.  220,  22  S.  Ct.  629,  46  L.  ed.  878. 

30  The  Cherokee  Tobbaco,  11  Wall.  620,  20  L.  ed.  227;  Whitney 
v.  Eobertson,  124  U.  S.  194,  8  S.  Ct.  456,  31  L.  ed.  386;  Fong  Yuo 
Ting  v.  United  States,  149  U.  S.  720,  13  S.  Ct.  1016,  37  L.  ed.  905; 
La  Abra  Min.  Co.  v.  United  States,  175  U.  S.  460,  20  S.  Ct.  168,  44 
L.  ed.  223. 

31  Bottiller  v.  Dominguez,  130  U.  S.  247,  9  S.  Ct.  525,  32  L.  ed. 
926. 

32  Lem  Moon  Sing  v.  United  States,  15S  U.  S.  549,  15  S.  Ct.  967, 
39  L.  ed.  1082. 

33  Head  Money  Cases,  112  U.  S.  599,  5  S.  Ct.  247,  28  L.  ed.  798; 
Neeley  v.  Henkel,  180  U.  S.  126,  21  S.  Ct.  308,  45  L.  ed.  448. 

34  Reichart  v.  Felps,  6  Wall.  166,  18  L.  ed.  849. 

35  Chirac  v.  Chirac,  2  Wheat.  277,  4  L.  ed.  234;  Society  for  Propa- 
gation of  Gospel  v.  New  Haven,  8  Wheat.  494,  5  L.  ed.  662;  The 
Chinese  Exclusion  Case,  130  U.  S.  602,  9  S.  Ct.  623,  32  L.  ed.  1068. 

36  Hauenstein  v.  Lynham,  100  U.  S.  489,  25  L.  ed.  628. 

37  License  Cases,  5  How.  613,  12  L.  ed.  256.* 

38  The  Cherokee  Tobacco,  11  Wall.  620,  20  L.  ed.  227. 

39  The  Sapphire,  11  Wall.  168,  20  L.  ed.  127. 


485  Officers.  Art.  II,  §  2,  CI.  2 

Appointment  and  Removal  of  Officers. 

An  office  is  a  public  station,  or  employment,  conferred  by 
appointment  of  the  government;  the  term  embraces  the  ideas 
of  tenure,  duration,  emolument  and  duties,40  and  he  who  holds 
the  office  and  performs  the  duties  is  an  officer.41"  It  follows 
that  there  can  be  no  officer,  either  de  jure  or  de  facto,  where 
there  is  no  office,  as  where  the  act  attempting  to  create  an 
office  is  void:  in  such  a  case  a  person  assuming  to  act  as  an 
officer  is  a  mere  usurper.42 

A  person  in  the  service  of  the  government  is  an  officer  of  the 
United  States  only  when  he  holds  his  place  by  an  appointment 
of  the  President,  or  of  one  of  the  courts  of  justice  or  heads 
of  departments  authorized  by  law  to  make  such  appointment.43 
A  person  employed  under  a  contract  is  not  necessarily  an  of- 
ficer.44 Thus  customs  collector's  clerks  are  not  United  States 
officers;45  nor  is  a  merchant  appraiser;46  nor  a  paymaster's 
clerk  in  the  navy.47  The  mere  direction  that  a  thing  shall  be 
done  does  not  constitute  an  office.48 


Power  of  the  Executive. 


The  appointment  and  removal  of  officers  is  a  necessary  in- 
cident of  the  executive  power.49     The  power  of  the  President 

40  United  States  v.  Hartwell,  6  Wall.  393,  18  L.  ed.  830;  United 
States  v.  Moore,  95  U.  S.  762,  24  L.  ed.  588;  Thomas  v.  Chicago  etc. 
Ey.  Co.,  37  Fed.  549;  Northwestern  Ins.  Co.  v.  Quinn,  69  Fed.  464; 
United  States  v.  McCrary,  91  Fed.  296;  Foltz  v.  Kerlin,  105  Ind. 
223,  55  Am.  Eep.  198,  4  N.  E.  440. 

41  United  States  v.  Maurice,  2  Brock,  96,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,747. 

42  Norton  v.  Shelby  County,  118  U.  S.  425,  6  S.  Ct.  1121,  30  L. 
ed.  178;  In  re  Allison,  13  Colo.  530,  16  Am.  St.  Eep.  227,  22  Pac. 
821,  10  L.  E.  A.  790. 

43  United  States  v.  Monat,  124  U.  S.  307,  8  S.  Ct.  506,  31  L.  ed. 
463. 

44  United  States  v.  Maurice,  2  Brock.  96,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,747. 

45  United  States  v.  Smith,  124  U.  S.  532,  8  S.  Ct  597,  31  L.  ed. 
534. 

46  Auffmordt  v.  Hedden,  137  U.  S.  127,  11  S.  Ct.  108,  34  L.  ed. 
674. 

47  United  States  v.  Monat,  124  U.  S.  308,  8  S.  Ct.  506,  31  L.  ed.  463. 

48  United  States  v.  Maurice,  2  Brock.  96,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,747. 

49  Ex  parte  Hennen,  13  Pet.  230,  10  L.  ed.  138. 


Art.  II,  §  2,  CI.  2  Officers.  480 

to  appoint  necessarily  includes  the  power  to  remove  officers,50 
and  although  the  appointing  power  in  certain  cases  is  vested 
in  the  President  and  Senate  jointly,  the  power  of  removal  is 
in  the  President  alone,  and  the  consent  of  the  Senate  is  un- 
necessary.51 '  So  where  no  tenure  of  office  is  prescribed  by  the 
constitution,  and  unless  Congress  shall  have  given  some  other 
duration  to  it,  the  President  may  remove  any  officer,  whether 
civil  or  military.5?  Accordingly  the  President  may  remove 
military  officers,53  territorial  judges,54  United  States  district 
attorneys,548  assessors  of  internal  revenue.55 

A  general  power  to  remove  officers  carries  the  right  to  re- 
move at  any  time  or  in  any  manner  deemed  best,  with  or  with- 
out previous  notice,56  and  a  removal  carries  with  it  the  pre- 
sumption that  there  was  cause,57  and  where  an  officer  is  re- 
moved without  notice  it  will  be  presumed  that  the  removal  was 
for  a  cause  other  than  those  specified  by  Congress  and  which 
carry  the  right  to  notice.58     Where  the  power  to  remove  an 

50  Ex  parte  Hennen,  13  Pet.  230,  10  L.  ed.  138;  Blake  v.  United 
States,  103  U.  S.  232,  26  L.  ed.  462;  United  States  v.  Allred,  155  U. 
S.  594,  15  S.  Ct.  233,  39  L.  ed.  273;  Gratiot  v.  United  States,  1  Ct. 
of  CI.  258;  In  re  Eaves,  30  Fed.  23;  State  v.  Chatfield,  71  Conn.  112, 
40  Atl.  925;  People  v.  Eobb,  126  N.  Y.  182,  27  N.  E.  267. 

51  Ex  parte  Hennen,  33  Pet.  259,  10  L.  ed.  138;  Blake  v.  United 
States,  103  U.  S.  231,  26  L.  ed.  462;  Parsons  v.  United  States,  167 
U.  S.  331,  17  S.  Ct.  882,  42  L.  ed.  185;  Shurtleff  v.  United  States,  189 
U.  S.  311,  23  S.  Ct.  535,  47  L.  ed.  828;  United  States  v.  Avery, 
Deady,  207,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,481;  McElrath's  Case,  12  Ct.  of  CI.  201; 
Collin's  Case,  15  Ct.  of  CI.  22. 

52  Ex  parte  Hennen,  13  Pet.  259,  10  L.  ed.  138;  Gratiot  v.  United 
States,  1  Ct.  of  CI.  258. 

53  Blake  v.  United  States,  103  U.  S.  231,  26  L.  ed.  462;  Ex  parts 
Schaumburg,  21  Fed.  Cas.  654. 

54  Ex  parte  Hennen,  13  Pet.  230,  10  L.  ed.  138;  Anonymous,  3 
Opin.  Atty.  Gen.  673;  Anonymous,  5  Opin.  Atty.  Gen.  2S8. 

54a  Parsons  v.  United  States,  167  U.  S.  331,  17  S.  Ct.  882,  42  L. 
ed.  185. 

55  United  States  v.  Avery,  Deady,  207,  Fed  Cas.  No.  14,481. 

56  Eckoff  v.  District  of  Columbia,  135  U.  S.  241,  10  S.  Ct.  752,  34 
L.  ed.  120. 

57  In  re  Marshalship  for  Alabama,  20  Fed.  382. 

58  Shurtleff  v.  United  States,  189  U.  S.  311,  23  S.  Ct.  535,  47  L. 
cd.  828. 


487  Officers.  Art.  II,  §  2,  CI.  2 

officer  is  discretionary  the  courts  will  not  inquire  as  to  the 
grounds  for  a  removal.59 

A  removal  may  be  either  express,  by  notification,  by  order  of 
the  President,  or  implied  by  the  appointment  of  another  per- 
son to  the  same  office,  but  notification  of  the  fact  of  removal 
must  be  actually  received  by  the  person  removed.60  The  ap- 
pointment of  a  successor  to  an  office  operates,  per  se,  as  a  re- 
moval of  the  incumbent.61  So  the  appointment  of  a  marshal's 
successor  completes  the  removal  of  the  incumbent,  and  a  sale 
made  by  the  latter  subsequently  is  void.62  Acceptance  by  the 
appointee  and  notification  to  the  incumbent  are  necessary  to 
devest  the  incumbent  of  his  powers.63 

"He  shall  nominate"  means  to  recommend  in  writing;  in 
this  form  the  advice  of  the  Senate  is  asked.64  "Nominating" 
and  "appointing"  are  distinct  acts  from  commissioning;  when 
the  appointing  power  has  done  everything  to  be  performed  by 
him  the  appointment  is  complete.65  Officers  whose  duties  are 
extended  by  Congress  need  not  be  again  nominated  and  ap- 
pointed.66 The  President  cannot  make  a  temporary  appoint- 
ment during  a  recess,  if  the  Senate  was  in  session  when  or 
since  the  vacancy  occurred.67  The  successor  of  an  appointee 
refusing  to  accept  is  in  the  place  of  the  appointee,  and  not  the 

59  Ex  parte  Hennen,  13  Pet.  261,  10  L.  ed.  138;  Ex  parte  Schaum- 
burg,  21  Fed.  Cas.  654;  In  re  Marshalship  for  Alabama,  20  Fed.  382. 

60  Ex  parte  Hennen,  13  Pet.  261,  10  L.  ed.  138;  Bowerbank  v. 
Morris,  Wall.  Sr.  118,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1726. 

61  Ex  parte  Hennen,  13  Pet.  261,  10  L.  ed.  138;  Holley  v.  New 
York  City,  59  N.  Y.  170. 

62  United  States  v.  Bank  of  Arkansas,  Hemp.  462,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
14,515. 

63  People  ex  rel.  v.  Carrique,  2  Hill,  98;  Commonwealth  ex  rel.  v. 
Slifer,  25  Pa.  St.  29,  64  Am.  Dec.  682. 

64  Marbury  v.  Madison,  1  Cr.  154,  2  L.  ed.  60. 

65  Marbury  v.  Madison,  1  Cr.  154,  2  L.  ed.  60;  Seamon  v.  North- 
western Mut.  Life  Ins.  Co.,  86  Fed.  497;  People  ex  rel.  v.  Perkins, 
85  Cal.  513,  26  Pac.  247. 

66  Shoemaker  v.  United  States,  147  U.  S.  301,  13  S.  Ct.  361,  37 
L.  ed.  170. 

67  Case  of  District  Attorney,  16  Am.  Law.  Eeg.  786. 


Art.  n,  §  2,  CI.  2  Officers.  488 

original  holder;68  the  appointee  never  having  been  inducted 
into  office,  he  is  not  to  be  considered  in  determining  the  status 
or  rights  of  the  successor.69  The  delivery  of  the  commission 
is  not  necessary  to  complete  an  appointment;  the  commis- 
sion is  merely  evidence  of  the  appointee's  title  and  not  neces- 
sary to  its  vestiture.70  Once  issued,  the  commission  is  con- 
clusive evidence  of  appointment  as  against  the  appointing 
power.71  When  the  appointment  to  an  office  is  complete,  it  is 
irrevocable  whether  the  commission  has  been  delivered  or 
not.72 

Offices  are  created  for  the  benefit  of  the  public,  and  private 
parties  cannot  question  the  title  of  persons  clothed  with  the 
insignia  of  an  office  and  in  apparent  possession  of  its  powers 
and  functions.73  So  the  title  of  a  person  acting  with  color  of 
authority,  even  if  he  be  not  a  good  officer  in  point  of  law, 
cannot  be  collaterally  attacked.74  Appointment  and  service  as 
a  deputy  marshal  without  a  valid  oath  constitutes  one  a  de 
facto  officer.75  So  also  the  proceedings  of  a  justice  of  the 
peace,  duly  appointed,  but  not  commissioned,  are  valid.76 

68  Marbury  v.  Madison,  1  Cr.  154-162,  2  L.  ed.  60;  United  States 
v.  Kirkpatrick,  9  Wheat.  734,  6  L.  ed.  199;  Johnson  v.  United  States, 
5  Mason,  438,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7419;  Bowerbank  v.  Morris,  Wall.  Sr. 
118,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1726. 

69  Johnston  v.  Wilson,  2  N.  H.  203,  9  Am.  Dec.  51;  People  ex  reV, 
v.  Whitman,  10  Cal.  38. 

70  Marbury  v.  Madison,  1  Cr.  156-159,  2  L.  ed.  60;  Sprowl  v. 
Lawrence,  33  Ala.  689;  State  ex  rel.  v.  Peelle,  124  Ind.  520,  24  N. 
E.     442,  8  L.  E.  A.  228. 

71  Marbury  v.  Madison,  1  Cr.  156-159,  2  L.  ed.  60;  Quimby  v. 
Boyd,  8  Colo.  207,  6  Pac.  470. 

72  Marbury  v.  Madison,  1  Cr.  154-162,  2  L.  ed.  60;  Speed  v.  Com- 
mon Council,  97  Mich.  207,  56  N.  W.  573;  State  ex  rel.  v.  Barbour, 
53  Conn.  85,  55  Am.  Kep.  68,  22  Atl.  688. 

73  Norton  v.  Shelby  County,  118  U.  S.  441,  6  S.  Ct.  1121,  30  L. 
ed.  178. 

7  4  Ex  parte  Henry  Ward,  173  U.  S.  456,  19  S.  Ct.  459,  43  L.  ed. 
765. 

75  Wright  v.  United  States,  158  U.  S.  238,  15  S.  Ct.  819,  39  L. 
ed.  963. 

76  Billy  v.  State,  2  Nott    &  McC.  361. 


489  Officers.  Art.  II,  §  2,  CI.  2 

Heads  of  departments  can  make  appointments  only  in  those 
cases  authorized  by  law;77  but  as  the  President  has  power  to 
suspend  an  internal  revenue  collector,  the  act  of  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  in  so  doing  is  deemed  to  be  the  act  of  the 
President.78 

The  President  may  appoint  diplomatic  agents  of  any  rank 
at  any  place  or  time.79  In  the  absence  of  an  act  providing  for 
the  appointment  of  vice-consuls,  they  can  only  be  appointed 
with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate.80  A  vice-consul  is 
a  mere  subordinate  officer,  and  Congress  has  power  to  vest  in 
the  President  the  power  to  appoint  a  vice-consul  to  perform 
temporarily  the  functions  of  the  consular  office.81  The  phrase 
"ambassadors,  other  public  ministers  and  consuls,"  as  used  in 
the  constitution  is  descriptive  of  a  class  existing  by  the  law  of 
nations,  and  applies  to  diplomatic  agents.82- 

Power  of  Congress. 


The  Senate  can  only  reject  or  affirm  the  nomination  of  the 
President;  it  cannot  take  the  initial  step.83  Appointments  to 
office  can  only  be  made  by  the  executive  in  the  manner  pro- 
Tided  and  not  by  congressional  enactment,838  and  Congress 
cannot  by  law  designate  the  person  to  fill  an  office;84  but  Con- 
gress may  authorize  a  particular  officer  to  perform  a  particular 
duty,85  or  may  extend  the  duties  of  officers,86  and  Congress 
may  retire  an  officer  or  may  change  his  rank  on  the  active  or 

77  United  States  v.  Maurice,  2  Brock.  96,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,747. 

78  United  States  v.  Farden,  99  U.  S.  19,  25  L.  ed.  267. 

79  Anonymous,  7  Opin.  Atty.  Gen.  186. 

80  Dainese's  Case,  15  Ct.  of  CI.  64. 

81  United  States  v.  Eaton,  169  U.  S.  344,  18  S.  Ct.  374,  42  L. 
ed.  767. 

82  In  re  Baiz,  135  U.  S.  403,  10  S.  Ct.  854,  34  L.  ed.  222. 

83  Anonymous,  3  Opin.  Atty.  Gen.  188. 
83a  Wood's  Case,  15  Ct.  of  CI.  151. 

84  United  States  v.  Ferreira,  13  How.  40,  14  L.  ed.  42. 

85  Kentucky  v.  Dennison,  24  How.  108,  16  L.  ed.  717. 

86  Shoemaker  v.  United  States,  147  U.  S.  301,  13  S.  Ct.  361,  37  L. 
ed.  170. 


Art.  II,  §2,  CI.  2 


Officers.  490 


retired  list  without  conflicting  with  this  clause.87  The  con- 
stitution does  not  allow  Congress  to  vest  the  appointment  of 
inferior  officers  elsewhere  than  in  the  President  alone,  in  courts 
of  law  or  in  the  heads  of  departments;88  hut  when  Congress 
does  vest  the  power  in  any  of  these  agencies  it  may  restrict 
the  power  of  removal.89 

The  word  "inferior"  as  here  used  means  subordinate  or  in- 
ferior to  those  officers  in  whom  the  appointment  may  be 
vested.90  A  receiver  of  a  national  bank  appointed  by  the  head 
of  a  department  is  an  inferior  officer;91  so  also  are  supervisors 
of  elections,  and  the  vesting  by  Congress  of  the  appointment 
of  them  m  the  circuit  court  is  constitutional  and  the  duty  on 
the  court  obligatory.92  All  offices  under  the  federal  govern- 
ment, except  such  as  are  expressly  provided  for  in  the  constitu- 
tion, shall  be  established  by  law,93  and  all  officers  appointed 
by  authority  of  Congress  hold  their  offices  at  the  discretion 
of  the  appointing  power,  unless  the  tenure  is  restricted  by 
Congress.94  The  appointment  of  clerks  of  courts  belongs  prop- 
erly to  the  courts  of  law;95  but  Congress  may  restrict  the  ap- 
pointment of  a  commissioner  although  his  duties  are  of  a  ju- 
dicial nature.96  A  state  magistrate  who  commits  offenders 
against  the  laws  of  the  United  States  is  not  an  officer  within 
this  clause.97  The  cominissioner  of  pensions  is  not  the  "head 
of  a  department"  as  here  used;98  nor  is  a  collector  of  cus- 

87  Wood's  Case,  18  Ct.  of  CI.  761;  De  Celis'  Case,  13  Ct.  of  CI.  117. 

88  Ekiu  v.  United  States,  142  U.  S.  663,  12  S.  Ct.  336,  35  L.  ed. 
1146. 

89  United  States  v.  Perkins,  116  U.  S.  485,  6  S.  Ct.  449,  29  L.  ed. 
700. 

90  Collins'  Case,  14  Ct.  of  CI.  568. 

91  Frelinghuysen  v.  Baldwin,  12  Fed.  395. 

92  In  re  Citizens  of  Cincinnati,  2  Flipp.  228,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,628. 

93  United  States  v.  Maurice,  2  Brock.  96,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,747. 

94  Ex  parte  Hennen,  13  Pet.  259,  10  L.  ed.  138. 

95  Ex  parte  Hennen,  13  Pet.  258,  10  L.  ed.  138;  In  re  Shipping 
Commissioner,  13  Blatchf.  346,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,792. 

98  Ex  parte  Eobinson,  6  McLean,  355,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,935. 

97  Ex   parte   Gist,   26    Ala.   156. 

98  United  States  v.  Germaine,  99  U.  S.  509,  25  L.  ed.  482. 


491  Officers.  Art.  II,  §  2,  CI.  2 

toms."     The  civil  service  law  never  contemplated  any  inter- 
ference with  the  President's  power  of  removal.100 

The  temporary  appointment  of  a  person  to  an  office  by  the 
President  is  not  terminated  by  the  refusal  of  the  Senate  to  con- 
firm the  permanent  appointment,  and  the  powers  of  the  sus- 
pended officer  whose  office  he  occupied  are  not  thereby  re- 
vived.101 The  action  of  the  Senate  in  refusing  confirmation 
to  the  President's  nomination  is  conclusive.102 

99  United  States  v.  Smith,  124  IT.  S.  533,  8  S.  Ct.  595,  31  L.  ed. 
534. 

100  Flemmiug  v.  Stahl,  83  Fed.  940. 

101  In  re  Marshalship  of  Alabama,  20  Fed.  379. 

102  In  re  Marshalship  of  Alabama,  20  Fed.  379. 


Art.  II,  §  2,  CI.  3  Vacancies.  492 

3.  The  President  shall  have  power  to  fill  up  all  va- 
cancies that  may  happen  during  the  recess  of  the  Sen- 
ate, by  granting  commissions  which  shall  expire  at  the 
end  of  their  next  session. 

The  power  conferred  by  this  clause  is  not  confined  to  vacan- 
cies which  may  happen  in  offices  created  by  law.1  An  office  be- 
comes vacant  when  the  incumbent,  having  tendered  his  resig- 
nation, receives  notice  from  the  proper  authorities  that  the 
same  has  been  accepted.2-  An  act  making  it  unlawful  for  a 
person  to  hold  more  than  one  office  does  not  create  a  vacancy 
in  either  until  the  incumbent  elects  which  to  retain.3  The 
commission  of  an  officer  appointed  during  a  recess,  and  after- 
ward nominated  and  rejected,  continues  in  force  until  the  next 
session.4  If  the  Senate  concur,  it  is  a  new  appointment  and 
a  new  bond  will  be  required.5  Whenever  an  applicant  appears 
with  a  commission  signed  by  the  President  appointing  him  a 
marshal  to  fill  a  vacancy  created  during  a  recess,  it  is  the  duty 
of  the  district  judge  to  take  his  bond  and  administer  the  oath, 
regardless  of  any  question  of  the  President's  power.6  The 
President  cannot  make  a  temporary  appointment  during  a  re- 
cess if  the  Senate  was  in  session  when  or  since  the  vacancy  oc- 
curred.7 

1  United  States  v.  Maurice,  2  Brock.  96,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,747. 

2  Mimmact  v.  United  States,  97  U.  S.  437,  24  L.  ed.  1067. 

3  United  States  v.  Harsha,  172  U.  S.  572,  19  S.  Ct.  294,  43  L. 
ed.  556. 

A  Hill's  Case,  2  Opin.  Atty.  Gen.  336;  Tyson's  Case,  4  Opin.  Atty. 
Gen.  30. 

5  United  States  v.  Kirkpatrick,  9  Wheat.  733,  6  L.  ed.  199. 

6  In  re  Yancey,  28  Fed.  445. 

1  Case  of  District  Atty.,  16  Am.  Law.  Reg.  786. 


493  Execution  of  Laws.  Art.  II,  §  3 


SECTION  3. 

MESSAGES.      RECEPTION  OF  AMBASSADORS,  ETC.      COMMISSIONING 

OFFICERS. 

He  shall  from  time  to  time  give  to  tlie  Congress  infor- 
mation of  the  state  of  the  Union,  and  recommend  to 
their  consideration  such  measures  as  he  shall  judge  nec- 
essary and  expedient;  he  may,  on  extraordinary  occa- 
sions, convene  both  Houses,  or  either  of  them,  and  in 
case  of  disagreement  between  them,  with  respect  to  the 
time  of  adjournment,  he  may  adjourn  them  to  such  time 
as  he  shall  think  proper;  he  shall  receive  ambassadors 
and  other  public  ministers;  he  shall  take  care  that  the 
laws  be  faithfully  executed,  and  shall  commission  all 
the  officers  of  the  United  States. 

It  is  the  duty  of  the  President  to  see  that  the  laws  are  faith- 
fully executed  as  they  are  expounded  and  adjudged  by  the  co- 
ordinate branch  of  the  government  to  which  that  duty  is  as- 
signed,1 to  the  extent  of  \he  means  placed  at  his  disposal  ;2  but 
only  by  such  means  as  the  constitution  and  laws  themselves 
have  given  him  power  to  employ,3  and  in  this  he  cannot  be  en- 
joined by  the  supreme  court,4  his  discretionary  power  being  be- 
yond judicial  control.5 

1  Ex  parte  Merryman,  Taney,  246. 

2  Anonymous,  9  Opin.  Atty.  Gen.  524. 

3  In  re  Kemp,  16  Wis.  359. 

4  Mississippi  v.  Johnson,  4  Wall.  500,  18  L.  ed.  437;  Gaines  v.  Thomp- 
son, 7  Wall.  353,  19  L.  ed.  62. 

5  Marbury  v.  Madison,  1  Cr.  169,  2  L.  ed.  60;  In  re  Kaine,  14  How. 
119,  14  L.  ed.  345;  Kendall  v.  United  States,  12  Pet.  527,  9  L.  ed. 
1181;  Prize  Cases,  2  Black,  635,  17  L.  ed.  459;  Bartlett  v.  Kane,  16 
How.  272,  14  L.  ed.  931;  Board  of  Liquidation  v.  McComb,  92  U.  S. 
541,   23  L.   ed.   #23 ;   Craig  v.   Leitensdorfer,  123  U.  S.   211,  8  S.   Ct. 


Art.  II,  §  3  Execution  of  Laws.  49-1 

The  obligation  thus  imposed  on  the  President  to  see  the  laws 
faithfully  executed  does  not  confer  upon  him  any  power  to  for- 
bid their  execution.6  He  has  no  power  to  dispense  with  or  for- 
bid the  execution  of  any  law,7  and  he  cannot  be  restrained  from 
carrying  info  effect  an  act  of  Congress  alleged  to  be  unconstitu- 
tional.8 It  is  the  duty  of  the  executive  department  to  protect 
a  justice  or  judge  of  a  United  States  court  when  there  is  rea- 
son to  believe  that  he  will  be  in  personal  danger  while  perform- 
ing his  duties.9  Under  this  power  the  President  ought  to 
act  when  the  laws  are  violated  and  the  rights  of  the  govern- 
ment invaded.10 

In  case  of  a  revolution  or  the  dismemberment  of  a  nation, 
the  courts  cannot  take  notice  of  any  new  government  or  sov- 
ereignty until  it  is  recognized  by  the  political  department,  and 
they  are  bound  by  such  recognition.11  The  decision  of  the  exec- 
utive as  to  the  public  character  of  one  claiming  to  be  a  foreign 
minister  is  binding  on  the  courts.12 

Commissioning  and  appointing  officers  are  distinct  powers.13 
The. commissioning  of  an  officer  is  merely  the  issuing  to  him 
of  the  evidence  of  his  appointment.14 

1393,  31  L.  ed.  114;  The  Chinese  Exclusion  Case,  130  U.  S.  602,  9 
S.  Ct.  623,  32  L.  ed.  1068;  Quaekenbush  v.  United  States,  177  U.  S. 
25,  20  S.  Ct.  530,  44  L.  ed.  654;  Keim  v.  United  States,  177  U.  S. 
292,  20  S.  Ct.  574,  44  L.  ed.  774. 

6  Kendall  v.  United  States,  12  Pet.  613,  9  L.  ed.  1181. 

7  Kendall  v.  United  States,  12  Pet.  613,  9  L.  ed.  1181. 

8  Mississippi  v.  Johnson,  4  Wall.  475,  18  L.  ed.  437;  Georgia  v. 
Stanton,  6  Wall.  77,  18  L.  ed.  721. 

0  In  re  Neagle,  135  U.  S.  67,  10  S.  Ct.  658,  34  L.  ed.  55. 

10  State  v.  Delesdernier,  7   Tex.  95. 

11  United  States  v.  Palmer,  3  Wheat.  634,  4  L.  ed.  471;  'Gelston 
v.  Hoyt,  3  Wheat.  323,  4  L.  ed.  381;  Rose  v.  Himely,  4  Cr.  441,  2  L. 
ed.  608;  The  Divina  Pastora,  4  Wheat.  52,  4  L.  ed.  512;  The  Nuestra 
Sefiora  de  la  Caridad,  4  Wheat.  494,  4  L.  ed.  624;  Prize  Cases,  2 
Black,  635,  17  L.  ed.  459;  The  Santissima  Trinidad,  7  Wheat.  283, 
5  L.  ed.  454;  United  States  v.  Yorba,  1  Wall.  423,  17  L.  ed.  635; 
Phillips  v.  Payne,  92  U.  S.  132,  23  L.  ed.  649;  Jones  v.  United  States, 
137  U.  S.  212,  11  S.  Ct.  80,  34  L.  ed.  691. 

12  In  re  Baiz,  135  U.  S.  432,  10  S.  Ct.  854,  34  L.  ed.  222. 

13  Marbury  v.  Madison,  1  Cr.  151,  2  L.  ed.  60. 

14  Marbury  v.  Madison,  1  Cr.  156,  2  L.  ed.  60. 


495  Impeachment.  Art.  II,  §  4 


SECTION  4. 

REMOVAL   OE   OFFICERS    ON    IMPEACHMENT. 

The  President,  Vice-President,  and  all  civil  officers  of 
the  United  States,  shall  be  removed  from  office  on  im- 
peachment for,  and  conviction  of,  treason,  briberv.  or 
other  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors. 

A  senator  or  a  member  of  Congress  is  not  a  civil  officer  within 
the  meaning  of  this  clause.1  United  States  circuit  and  dis- 
trict judges  are  contemplated  by  this  provision.2 

1  Blount's  Trial,  102. 

2  Peck's   Trial,   Chase's  Trials,  137. 


Art.  Ill,  §  1  Establishment  of  Courts.  496 


ARTICLE  III. 

JUDICIAL  DEPAKTMENT. 

SECTION  1. 

SUPREME  AND  INFERIOR  COURTS.      TERM  OF  OFFICE  AND  COMPEN- 
SATION OF  JUDGES. 

The  judicial  power  of  the  United  States  shall  be 
vested  in  one  Supreme  Court,  and  in  such  inferior 
courts  as  the  Congress  may  from  time  to  time  ordain 
and  establish.  The  Judges,  both  of  the  Supreme  and 
inferior  courts,  shall  hold  their  offices  during  good  be- 
havior, and  shall,  at  stated  times,  receive  for  their  ser- 
vices a  compensation,  which  shall  not  be  diminished 
during  their  continuance  in  office. 

Establishment  of  Federal  Courts. 

The  supreme  court  exists  by  virtue  of  a  direct  grant  of  power 
from  the  people.1  Congress  cannot  confer  jurisdiction  upon 
any  courts  except  those  existing  under  the  constitution  and 
laws  of  the  United  States,2  nor  can  it  confer  any  part  of  the 
judicial  power  upon  an  executive  officer.3  The  entire  judicial 
power  delegated  by  the  constitution  does  not  vest  ipso  facto  in 
the  courts  created  by  Congress.  The  inferior  federal  courts 
derive  their  judicial  power  from  Congress,  not  directly  from 
the  constitution,  and  can  exercise  onfy  such  powers  as  Congress 
sees  fit  to  confer.4 

Legislation  is  necessary  to  vest  in  the  inferior  courts  their 
judicial  power;5  the  power,  although  originating  in  the  con- 

1  Khode  Island  v.  Massachusetts,  12  Pet.  720,  9  L.  ed.  1233. 

2  Houston  v.  Moore,  5  Wheat.  27,  5  L.  ed.  19. 

3  Beatty  v.  United  States,  1  Dev.  231. 

4  Turner  v.  Bank  of  North  America,  4  Dall.  10,  1  L.  ed.  718. 

5  McClung  v.  Silliman,  6  Wheat.  604,  5  L.   ed.  840. 


497  Establishment  of  Courts.  Art.  Ill,  §  1 

stitution,  being  dependent  for  distribution,  organization  and 
mode  of  exercise  entirely  upon  the  action  of  Congress.6  It  is 
only  in  courts  ordained  and  established  by  itself  that  Congress 
can  vest  any  portion  of  the  judicial  power  of  the  United 
States.7  Congress  cannot  vest  any  portion  of  the  judicial 
power  here  referred  to  in  state  courts.8  So  a  state  court  can- 
not exercise  any  judicial  power  conferred  by  Congress;9  nor 
can  Congress  enforce  jurisdiction  on  a  state  court,10  nor  com- 
pel a  state  court  to  exercise  jurisdiction.11  Congress  cannot 
give  jurisdiction  to,  or  require  the  services  of,  a  state  officer 
as  such;12  but  state  officers  may  be  authorized  to  perform  du- 
ties merely  incidental  to  the  judicial  power;  e.  g.,  the  issuing 
of  a  warrant  for  a  deserting  seaman  by  a  justice  of  the  peace.13 
The  judicial  power  is  vested  by  the  constitution  in  the  courts 
of  the  United  States,14  and  Congress  may  authorize  any  United 

6  Cary  v.  Curtis,  3  How.  245,  11  L.  ed.  576;  Fountain  v.  Eavenel, 
17  How.  384,  15  L.  ed.  80. 

1  Houston  v.  Moore,  5  Wheat.  27,  5  L.  ed.  19;  United  States  v. 
Ames,  1  Wood.  &  M.  89,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,441;  The  British  Prisoners, 
1  Wood.  &  M.  66,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,734;  Stearns  v.  United  States,  2 
Paine,  308,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,341;  Ex  parte  Knowles,  5  Cal.  300;  Ely 
v.  Peck,  7  Conn.  239;  Davison  v.  Champlin,  7  Conn.  244;  Morgan 
v.  Dudley,  18  B.  Mon.  714,  68  Am.  Dee.  739;  Eushworth  v.  Jmlges 
of  Hudson  Pleas,  58  N.  J.  L.  98,  32  Atl.  744;  United  States  v.  La- 
throp,  17  Johns.  4;  State  v.  McBride,  Eice,  400;  Jackson  v.  Eose,  2 
Va.  Cas.  34. 

8  Martin  v.  Hunter,  1  Wheat.  330,  4  L.  ed.  97;  Houston  v.  Moore, 
5  Wheat.  27,  5  L.  ed.  19;  Stearns  v.  United  States,  2  Paine,  308,  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  13,341;  Ex  parte  Knowles,  5  Cal.  301;  Eushworth  v.  Judges, 
58  N.  J.  L.  99,  32  Atl.  744;  United  States  v.  Lathrop,  17  Johns.  5. 

9  Ex  parte  Knowles,  5  Cal.  301;  Peck  v.  Jenness,  16  N.  H.  534, 
43  Am.  Dec.  581;   Beavins'  Petition,  33  N.  H.  91. 

io  Stearns  v.  United  States,  2  Paine,  308,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,341 ; 
Ex  parte  Stephens,  70  Mass.  559;  The  British  Prisoners,  1  Wood.  & 
M.  66,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,441. 

11  Eushworth  v.  Judges,  etc.,  58  N.  J.  L.  98,  32  Atl.  744. 

12  Prigg  v.  Commonwealth,  16  Pet.  539,  10  L.  ed.  1060;  Ex  parte 
Pool,  2  Va.  Cas.  276. 

13  Eobertson  v.  Baldwin,  165  U.  S.  279,  17  S.  Ct.  326,  41  L.  ed. 
715.     And  see  In  re  Iasigi,  79  Fed.  755. 

14  Thomas  v.  Loney,  134  U.  S.  372,  10  S.  Ct.  584,  33  L.  ed.  949. 

Notes  on  Constitution — 32 


Art.  Ill,  §  1  Establishment  of  Courts.  498 

States  court  to  perform  any  act  which  the  constitution  does 
not  require  to  be  performed  in*  a  different  manner.15  This  sec- 
tion does  not  give  to  Congress  the  power  to  establish  military 
courts  in  insurrectionary  districts,16  or  to  confer  jurisdiction 
on  a  military  commission.17  Under  this  clause  Congress  may 
invest  an  inferior  federal  court  with  jurisdiction  over  matters 
wherein  the  supreme  court  has  original  but  not  exclusive  jur- 
isdiction.18 So  inferior  courts  may  be  given  original  juris- 
diction in  matters  affecting  consuls,19  and  an  act  which  con- 
fers on  the  circuit  courts  jurisdiction  to  restrain  combinations 
to  obstruct  interstate  commerce  is  not  void  for  want  of  power.20 
Congress  may  establish  circuit  and  district  courts  in  any  state 
of  the  Union  and  may  confer  on  them  equitable  jurisdiction  in 
cases  coming  within  the  constitution,-1  and  in  all  cases  to  which 
the  judicial  power  extends  Congress  may  rightfully  vest  exclu- 
sive jurisdiction.22 

An  act  adopting  state  remedies  is  valid,23  and  the  statute 
requiring  federal  courts  to  conform  to  state  practice  does  not 
require  them  to  renounce  jurisdiction  lawfully  acquired  under 
act  of  Congress,24  nor  does  it  conflict  with  the  constitutional 
clause  prescribing  the  equity  jurisdiction  of  the  courts.25     The 

15  Ex  parte  Gist,  26  Ala.  156;  Ex  parte  Pool,  2  Va.  Cas.  276. 

16  Mechanics'  etc.  Bank  v.  Union  Bank,  22  Wall.  276,  22  L.  e.7. 
871;  The  Grapeshot,  9  Wall.  132,  19  L.  ed.  651. 

17  Ex  parte  Milligan,  4  Wall.  121,  18  L.  ed.  281. 

18  Ames  v.  Kansas,  111  U.  S.  471,  4  S.  Ct.  437,  28  L.  ed.  482. 

19  Bors  v.  Preston,  111  U.  S.  256,  4  S.  Ct.  407,  28  L.  ed.  419;  Davis 
v.  Packard,  7  Pet.  281,  8  L.  ed.  684;  Froment  v.  Duclos,  30  Fed.  385; 
Gittings  v.  Crawford,  Taney,  5,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5465;  Wilcox  v.  Luce, 
118  Cal.  642,  62  Am.  St.  Rep.  307,  50  Pac.  759,  45  L.  R.  A.  579. 

20  United  States  v.  Elliott,  64  Fed.  27. 

21  Livingston  v.  Story,  9  Pet.  655,  9  L.  ed.  255. 

22  The  Moses  Taylor,  4  Wall.  430,  18  L.  ed.  397;  Cardie  v.  Tracy, 
11  Blatchf.  114,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2279;  United  States  v.  Burlington  etc. 
Co.,  21  Fed.  337;  The  Willamette  Valley,  62  Fed.  296. 

23  Ex  parte  Boyd,  105  U.  S.  652,  26  L.  ed.  1200;  Steam  Stone-Cutter 
Co.  v.  Jones,   21  Blatchf.   156,  13  Fed.  565. 

24  Phelps  v.  Oaks,  117  U.  S.  239,  6  S.  Ct.  714,  29  L.  ed.  88S; 
O'Connell  v.  Reed,  56  Fed.  534. 

25  Ex  parte  Boyd,  105  U.  S.  656,  26  L.  ed.  1200;  Sage  v.  St.  Paul 
etc.  Ry.  Co.,  47  Fed.   \ 


499  Judicial  Power.  Art.  Ill,  §  1 

power  conferred  by  this  clause  does  not  warrant  Congress  in 
abrogating  any  established  law  of  property  or  in  removing  any 
obligation  of  the  citizens  of  a  state  to  submit  to  the  rule  of 
the  local  sovereign;26  nor  does  it  afford  any  pretext  for  giving 
a  United  States  court  original  jurisdiction  in  a  cause  involv- 
ing an  offense  against  state  laws,  because  the  defense  depends 
upon  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States.27 

The  United  States  courts  are  in  no  sense  agencies  of  the 
federal  government,  and  the  federal  government  cannot  be  held 
liable  for  their  errors.28 

Judicial  Power. 


Every  trial  involves  the  exercise  of  judicial  power,29  judicial 
power  being  that  power  with  which  courts  are  clothed  for  the 
purpose  of  the  trial  and  determination  of  causes,30  the  power 
to  hear  and  determine  the  subject  matter  in  controversy  between 
the  parties  to  a  suit  and  render  a  judgment  or  decree.31  It 
is  not  sufficient  to  bring  a  matter  under  the  judicial  power  that 
it  involves  the  exercise  of  judgment  upon  law  and  facts;32 
e.  g.,  matters  submitted  to  commissioners  or  heads  of  departments 
for  decision  according  to  their  discretion.33     The  power  to  hear 

26  Suydam  v.  Williamson,  24  How.  433,  15  L.  ed.  978;  Independent 
Dist.  v.  Beard,  83  Fed.  14. 

27  State  v.  Davis,  12  S.  C.  528. 

2S  United  States  v.  Dunnington,  146  U.  S.  351,  13  S.  Ct.  79,  35 
L.  ed.  996. 

29  Ex  parte  Milligan,  4  Wall.  121,  18  L.  ed.  281. 

30  United  States  v.  Arredondo,  6  Pet.  709,  8  L.  ed.  547;  Holmes 
v.  Oregon  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  7  Saw.  386,,  9  Fed.  232;  Nashville  C.  &  St. 
L.  Ey.  Co.  v.  Taylor,  86  Fed.  168. 

31  Bhode  Island  v.  Massachusetts,  12  Pet.  718,  9  L.  ed.  1233;  Biggs 
v.  Johnson  County,  6  Wall.  187,  IS  L.  ed.  768;  Borden  v.  State,  11 
Ark.  544,  54  Am.  Dec.  235;  Bitter  v.  Kunkle,  39  N.  J.  L.  262;  Fisher 
v.  Hepburn,  48  N.  Y.  52;  Vaughn  v.  Congdon,  56  Vt.  127. 

32  United  States  v.  Ferreira,  13  How.  47,  14  L.  ed.  42;  Murray 
v.  Hoboken  Land  etc.  Co.,  18  How.  272,  15  L.  ed.  372;  Ex  parte  Val- 
landingham,  1  Wall.  253,  17  L.  ed.  589;  In  re  Sanborn,  148  U."  S.  224, 
13  S.  Ct.  578,  37  L.  ed.  429. 

33  In  re  Kaine,  14  How.  120,  14  L.  ed.  347;  Murray  v.  Hoboken 
etc.  Land  Co.,  18  How.  280,  15  L.  ed.  372;  In  re  Sanborn,  148  U.  S. 


Art.  Ill,  §  1  Judicial  Power.  500 

and  pass  upon  the  validity  of  a  claim  in  an  ex  parte  proceed- 
ing is  not  a  judicial  power.34  A  provision  requiring  an  as- 
sessor to  impose  a  certain  penalty  if  he  shall  find  a  false  re- 
turn does  not  confer  judicial  power.35  An  administrative  duty 
may,  however,  involve  the  exercise  of  judicial  power  in  an  en- 
larged sense,  as  where  the  performance  of  it  involves  inquiry 
into  the  existence  of  facts,  and  the  application  to  them  of  rules 
of  law;  but  it  does  not  involve  the  exercise  of  judicial  power  as 
here  understood.36 

In  every  well-organized  government  the  judicial  power  should 
be  coextensive  with  the  legislative.37  The  judicial  power  of 
the  federal  courts  was  designed  for  the  benefit  of  all  the  people 
of  the  United  States,  and  is  to  be  exercised  for  the  benefit  of 
defendants  as  well  as  plaintiffs.38  It  presupposes  the  existence 
of  an  established  government,  and  the  acceptance  of  the  ju- 
dicial office  is  a  recognition  of  the  authority  of  the  government 
from  which  it  is  derived.39  So  the  courts  must  expound  the 
law  as  they  find  it,40  and  their  power  can  only  be  exercised  to 
give  effect  to  the  will  of  the  legislature,  not  that  of  the  judges.41 
The  judicial  power  must  always  regard  the  constitution  as  para- 
mount.42 

224,  13  S.  Ct.  578,  37  L.  ed.  429;  Ex  parte  Gans,  5  McCreary,  395, 
17  Fed.  473;  In  re  Interstate  Commerce  Com.,  53  Fed.  479;  Ex  parte 
Kiebling,   70  Fed.   311. 

34  United  States  v.  Ferreira,  13  How.  47,  14  L.  ed.  42;  United 
States  v.  Todd,  13  How.  52,  14  L.  ed.  47;  Ex  parte  Kiebling,  70  Fed. 
311;  Humphreys  v.  United  States,  1  Dev.  204. 

35  Doll  v.  Evans,  15  Int.  Rev.  Bee.  143,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3969. 

36  Murray  v.  Hoboken  Land  etc.  Co.,  18  How.  280,  15  L.  ed.  372. 

37  Kendall  v.  United  States,  12  Pet.  619,  9  L.  ed.  1181. 

38  Martin  v.  Hunter,  1  Wheat.  348,  4  L.  ed.  97. 

39  Luther  v.  Borden,  7  How.  39,  12  L.  ed.  581. 

40  Gelston  v.  Hoyt,  3  Wheat.  309,  4  L.  ed.  381;  Lake  County  v. 
Rollins,  130  U.  S.  672,  9  S.  Ct.  651,  32  L.  ed.  1060. 

41  Osborne  v.  United  States  Bank,  9  Wheat.  866,  6  L.  ed.  204; 
Williams  v.  Gaylord,  186  U.  S.  164,  22  S.  Ct.  798,  46  L.  ed.  1102. 

42  Marbury  v.  Madison,  1  Cr.  176-180,  2  L.  ed.  60;  Cohen  v.  Vir- 
ginia, 6  Wheat.  414,  5  L.  ed.  257;  Pollock  v.  Farmers'  Loan  etc.  Co., 
157  U.  S.  554,  15  S.  Ct.  679,  39  L.  ed.  759;  Mugler  v.  Kansas,  123  U. 
S.  661,  8  S.  Ct.  297,  31  L.  ed.  205. 


501  Judicial  Power.  Art.  Ill,  §  1 

The  object  of  this  clause  was  to  provide  for  the  establish- 
ment of  a  judiciary  of  the  United  States  as  a  department  of 
the  government,43  independent  in  its  own  sphere,  and  having 
no  authority  to  encroach  on  the  powers  granted  to  the  other 
departments.44  The  declaration  in  the  constitution  that  ju- 
dicial power  shall  be  vested  in  certain  courts  is  equivalent  to 
a  provision  that  no  judicial  power  is  vested  in  Congress,  or  in 
either  house,  except  in  the  cases  specifically  enumerated.45  On 
the  other  hand,  neither  the  executive  department  nor  the  legis- 
lative department  can  be  restricted  by  the  judicial,  though  the 
acts  of  both,  when  performed,  are,  in  proper  cases,  subject  to 
its  cognizance.46  The  judiciary  can  only  inquire  whether  the 
means  devised  by  Congress,  in  the  execution  of  a  power,  are 
forbidden  by  the  constitution;47  the  courts  cannot  inquire,  of 
their  own  motion,  as  to  the  validity  of  action  taken  by  the  other 
departments  in  the  exercise  of  their  powers;48  the  question 
must  arise  in  a  case  involving  the  rights  of  actual  litigants.49 

Upon  political  questions  the  courts  are  bound  to  follow  the 
decision   of   the   political   departments   of   the   government;50 

43  Chisholm  v.  Georgia,  2  Dall.  432,  1  L.  ed.  440;  Osborne  v.  Bank 
of  United  States,  9  "Wheat.  '819,  6  L.  ed.  204. 

44  Marbury  v.  Madison,  1  Cr.  176,  2  L.  ed.  60;  Mississippi  v.  John- 
son, 4  Wall.  500,  18  L.  ed.  437;  Veazie  Bank  v.  Fenno,  8  Wall.  548,  19 
L.  ed.  482;  Georgia  v.  Stanton,  6  Wall.  50,  18  L.  ed.  721;  Loan  Associ- 
ation v.  Topeka,  20  Wall.  669,  22  L.  ed.  455;  Lane  v.  Anderson,  67 
Fed.  563;  Enterprise  Savings  etc.  Assn.  v.  Zumstein,  67  Fed.  1000; 
Taylor  v.  Kercheval,  82  Fed.  497. 

45  Kilbourn  v.  Thompson,  103  U.  S.  192,  26  L.  ed.  377. 

46  Bartlett  v.  Kane,  16i  How.  272,  14  L.  ed.  931;  Board  of  Liquida- 
tion v.  McComb,  92  U.  S.  541,  23  L.  ed.  623;  Craig  v.  Leitensdorfe-, 
123  U.  S.  211,  8  S.  Ct.  1393,  32  L.  ed.  322;  United  States  v.  Bashaw. 
152  U.  S.  443,  14  S.  Ct.  638,  38  L.  ed.  505;  Keim  v.  United  States, 
177  U.  S.  292,  20  S.  Ct.  574,  44  L.  ed.  774. 

47  Interstate  Commerce  Com.  v.  Brimson,  154  U.  S.  447,  14  S.  Ct. 
1125,  38  L.  ed.  1047. 

48  Quackenbush  v.  United  States,  177  U.  S.  25,  20  S.  Ct.  530,  44 
L.  ed.  654. 

49  Clough  v.  Curtis,  134  U.  S.  372,  10  S.  Ct.  573,  33  L.  ed.  361. 

50  Marbury  v.  Madison,  1  Cr.  169,  2  L.  ed.  60;  Foster  v.  Neilsoa, 
2  Pet.  307,  7  L.  ed.  415;  United  States  v.  Lee,  106  U.  S.  209,  1  S. 
Ct.  240,  27  L.  ed.  171;  Craig  v.  Missouri,  4  Pet.  438,  7  L.  ed.  903; 
Cherokee  Nation  v.  Georgia,  5  Pet.  20,  8  L.  ed.  25. 


Art.  Ill,  §  1  Judicial  Power.  503 

e.  g.,  the  question  as  to  the  existence  of  peace  or  war;51  ques- 
tions as  to  the  existence  of  tribal  relations;52  as  to  the  public 
character  of  a  person  claiming  to  be  a  foreign  minister;53  as 
to  the  existence  of  a  treaty;54  as  to  whether  a  foreign  power 
has  become  an  independent  state;55  as  to  boundaries  between 
the  United  States  and  a  foreign  nation;56  as  to  the  admission 
or  exclusion  of  aliens.57 

It  follows,  then,  that  the  courts  cannot  inquire  as  to  the 
motive  prompting  the  acts  of  the  other  departments  of  govern- 
ment;58 their  knowledge  and  good  faith  are  not  open  to  ques- 
tion.59 Nor  can  the  expediency  or  wisdom  of  those  acts  be 
questioned  by  the  courts.60 

51  Luther  v.  Borden,  7  How.  42,  12  L.  ed.  581;  Keely  v.  Sanders, 
99  U.  S.  446,  25  L.  ed.  327;  Neeley  v.  Henkel,  180  U.  S.  124,  21  S. 
Ct.  302,  45  L.  ed.  448. 

52  United  States  v.  Holiday,  3  Wall.  419,  18  L.  ed.  182. 

53  In  re  Baiz,  135  U.  S.  432,  10  S.  Ct.  854,  34  L.  ed.  222. 

54  Terlinden  v.  Ames,  184  U.  S.  238,  22  S.  Ct.  484,  46  L.  ed.  534. 

55  Eose  v.  Himely,  4  Cr.  272,  2  L.  ed.  608;  Gelston  v.  Hoyt,  3 
Wheat.  324,  4  L.  ed.  381;  United  States  v.  Palmer,  3  Wheat.  634,  4 
L.  ed.  471;  The  Divina  Pastora,  4  Wheat.  63,  4  L.  ed.  512;  The  San- 
tissima  Trinidad,  7  Wheat.  283,  5  L.  ed.  454;  Williams  v.  Suffolk  Ins. 
Co.,  13  Pet.  420,  10  L.  ed.  226;  Kennett  v.  Chambers,  14  How.  50,  14 
L.  ed.  316;  United  States  v.  Yorba,  1  Wall.  423,  17  L.  ed.  635;  Phillips 
v.  Payne,  92  U.  S.  132,  23  L.  ed.  649;  Jones  v.  United  States,  137 
U.  S.  212,  11  S.  Ct.  80,  34  L.  ed.  644. 

56  De  La  Croix  v  Chamberlain,  12  Wheat.  600,  6  L.  ed.  741;  Foster 
v.  Neilson,  2  Pet.  307,  7  L.  ed.  415;  United  States  v.  Arredondo,  6  Pet. 
711,  8  L.  ed.  547;  Garcia  v.  Lee,  12  Pet.  516,  9  L.  ed.  1176;  United 
States  v.  Eeynes,  9  How.  154,  13  L.  ed.  74. 

57  Ekiu  v.  United  States,  142  U.  S.  660,  12  S.  Ct.  336,  35  L.  ed. 
1146;  Fong  Yue  Ting  v.  United  States,  149  U.  S.  712,  13  S.  Ct.  1013, 
37  L.  ed.  905. 

58  Fletcher  v.  Peck,  6  Cr.  131,  3  L.  ed.  162;  Ex  parte  McCardle, 
7  Wall.  514,  19  L.  ed.  264;  Soon  Hing  v.  Crowley,  113  U.  S.  710,  5 
S.  Ct.  730,  28  L.  ed.  1145;  Angle  v.  Chicago  etc.  Ey.  Co.,  151  U.  S. 
18,  14  S.  Ct.  240,  38  L.  ed.  55. 

59  United  States  v.  Des  Moines  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  142  U.  S.  544,  12  S. 
Ct.  308,  35  L.  ed.  1099. 

60  Wilkes  v.  Dinsman/  7  How.  127,  12  L.  ed.  618;  Dred  Scott  v. 
Sandford,  19  How.  405,  15  L.  ed.  691;  United  States  v.  Vassar,  5 
Wall.  469,  18  L.  ed.  497;  United  States  v.  Union  Pacific  E.  E.  Co, 


503  Judicial   Power.  Art.  Ill,  §  1 

The  constitution  defines  the  limits  of  the  judicial  power,  but 
Congress  prescribes  how  much  of  it  is  to  be  exercised  by  the 
inferior  federal  courts.61  The  judicial  power  delegated  by  the 
constitution  does  not  vest  ipso  facto  in  the  courts  which  are 
created  by  Congress  under  this  clause;  they  can  exercise  only 
such  power  as  Congress  sees  fit  to  confer.62  The  judicial  power 
remains  dormant  until  some  act  of  Congress  shall  call  it  into 
action  by  designating  the  particular  tribunal  or  tribunals  which 
shall  be  authorized  to  exercise  it,63  and  except  in  cases  specially 
enumerated  in  the  constitution  the  distribution  of  this  power  is 
entirely  within  the  control  of  Congress.64  In  certain  instances 
the  power  may  be  withdrawn  by  Congress,  even  in  pending 
cases.65  The  distribution  of  the  powers  conferred  is  governed 
by  the  laws  which  constituted  the  courts.66 

The  general  government  has  entire  authority  to  appoint  and 
commission  all  courts,  magistrates  and  officers  to  carry  out  its 
laws,67  but  Congress  cannot  confer  judicial  power  upon  any 
but  judicial  bodies  created  by  itsclf.67a     It  cannot  itself  assume 

91  U.  S.  91,  23  L.  ed.  224;  County  of  Livingston  v.  Darlington,  101 
U.  S.  416,  25  L.  ed.  1015;  Brass  v.  North  Dakota,  153  U.  S.  403,  14 
S.  Ct.  857,  38  L.  ed.  757;  Li  Sing  v.  United  States,  180  U.  S.  495, 
21  S.  Ct.  449,  45  L.  ed.  634;  Treat  v.  White,  181  U.  S.  269,  21  S. 
Ct.  611,  45  L.  ed.  853. 

ei  Turner  v.  Bank  of  North  America,  4  Dall.  10,  1  L.  ed.  718; 
Mclntire  v.  Wood,  7  Cr.  506,  3  L.  ed.  420;  Kendall  v.  United  States, 
12  Pet.  616,  9  L.  ed.  1181;  Cary  v.  Curtis,  3  How.  245,  11  L.  ed.  576. 

62  Turner  v.  Bank  of  North  America,  4  Dall.  10,  1  L.  ed.  718;  Mc- 
Clung  v.  Siiliman,  6  Wheat.  604,  5  L.  ed.  840;  Gaines  v.  Fuentes,  92 
U.   S.   18,   23   L.   ed.  524. 

63  McClung  v.  Siiliman,  6  Wheat.  604,  5  L.  ed.  840;  Bank  of  United 
States  v.  Koterts,  4  Conn.  323,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  934;  Bank  of  United 
States  v.  Northumberland  Bank,  4  Conn.  333,  4  Wash.  C.  C.  108, 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  931. 

64  Johnson  Co.  v.  Wharton,  152  U.  S.  260,  14  S.  Ct.  608,  38  L.  ed. 
429. 

63   Ex  parte  Yerger,  8  Wall.  104,  19  L.  ed.  332. 

66  Smith  v.  Jackson,  1  Paine,  453,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,064;  Moffat  v. 
Soley,  2  Paine,  103,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9688;  Shute  v.  Davis,  Pet.  C.  C. 
431,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,828. 

67  Ex  parte  Stephens,  70  Mass.  559. 

67a  Martin  v.  Hunter,  1  Wheat.   330,  4  L.  ed.   97. 


Art.  Ill,  §  1  Jurisdiction  of  Courts.  504. 

judicial  powers,68  nor  can  it  delegate  any  such  power  to  an 
executive  officer.69  So  appeals  from  the  exercise  of  a  judicial 
power  cannot  be  taken  to  an  executive  officer,  but  only  to  an 
appellate  court.70  There  is  nothing  in  this  clause,  however, 
which  would  prevent  a  ministerial  officer,  or  person  directed  by 
law,  from  doing  an  act  necessary  to  bring  a  person  before  a 
court  possessing  jurisdiction  over  him.71  Power  conferred 
upon  a  special  tribunal  will  not,  as  a  general  rule,  oust  the 
power  of  a  court  of  general  jurisdiction  in  the  absence  of  a 
clear  intention  to  that  effect  to  be  gathered  from  the  statute 
or  by  necessary  implication.72 

Jurisdiction. 


The  jurisdiction  of  the  supreme  court  is  pointed  out  in  the 
constitution;73  its  original  jurisdiction  extends  only  to  those 
cases  specified  in  article  III,  section  2,  clause  2,74  and  under 
that  clause  its  appellate  jurisdiction  is  to  be  defined  and  reg- 
ulated by  Congress.75  The  jurisdiction  of  the  federal  courts 
is  limited  by  the  constitution.76  The  vesting  of  judicial  power 
is  imperative,77  and  the  power  to  establish  courts  and  confer 
jurisdiction   upon   them   is   unlimited;78  but   the   courts   thus 

68  Kilbourn  v.  Thompson,  103  U.  S.  168,  26  L.  ed.  377;  Angle  v. 
Chicago  etc.  Ey.  Co.,  151  U.  S.  20,  14  S.  Ct.  240,  38  L.  ed.  55. 

69  Andrews  v.  Hovey,  124  U.  S.  717,  8  S.  Ct.  676,  31  L.  ed.  557; 
Beatty  v.  United  States,  1  Dev.  231. 

70  Gordon's  Case,  7  Ct.  of  CI.  1. 

71  Prigg  v.  Commonwealth,  16  Pet.  539,  10  L.  ed.  1060;  Ableman 
v.  Booth,  21  How.  506,  16  L.  ed.  169;  Ex  parte  Martin,  2  Paine,  348, 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  9154;  Ex  parte  Gist,  26  Ala.  156;  Ex  parte  Pool,  2  Va. 
Cas.  276. 

72  Fidelity  Trust  Co.  v.  Gill  Car.  Co.,  25  Fed.  737. 

73  Smith  v.  Jacks&n,  1  Paine,  453,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,064. 

74  Martia  v.  Hunter,  1  Wheat.  304,  4  L.  ed.  97. 

75  Holmes  v.  Jennison,  14  Pet.  540,  10  L.  ed.  579;  Decatur  v.  Pauld- 
ing, 14  Pet.  612,  10  L.  ed.  559;  United  States  v.  American  Bell  Tele- 
phone Co.,  159  U.  S.  549,  16  S.  Ct.  69,  40  L.  ed.  255. 

76  Chisholm  v.  Georgia,  2  Dall.  432,  1  L.  ed.  440;  Hodgson  v.  Bower- 
bank,  5  Cr.  304,  3  L.  ed.  308. 

77  Martin  v.  Hunter,  1  Wheat.  328,  4  L.  ed.  97;  Anderson  v.  Dunn, 
6  Wheat.  214,  5  L.  ed.  242. 

78  Mayor  v.  Cooper,  6  Wall.  251,  18  L.  ed.  851. 


505  Jurisdiction  of  Courts.  Art.  Ill,  §  1 

created  possess  no  jurisdiction  but  what  is  given  them  by  the 
power  which  creates  them.79  The  creation  of  the  courts  does 
not,  ipso  facto,  confer  any  jurisdiction;  positive  legislation  to 
that  end  is  necessary.80  Congress  may  say  what  and  how  much 
shall  vest  in  one  inferior  court  and  what  in  another.81 

"Inferior  courts"  are  of  special  and  limited  authority  erected 
on  such  principles  that  their  proceedings  must  show  their  juris- 
diction,82 their  judgments  being  entirely  disregarded  for  this 
purpose,83  and  whose  judgments  are  subject  to  revision  by  an 
appellate  court.84  Their  jurisdiction  must  appear  of  record.85 
Their  jurisdiction  depends  exclusively  on  the  constitution  and 
the  terms  of  statutes  passed  in  pursuance  thereof,86  or  on  the 
terms  of  a  treaty.86a 

79  United  States  v.  Hudson,  7  Cr.  33,  3  L.  ed.  259. 

80  Turner  v.  Bank  of  North  America,  4  Dall.  10,  1  L.  ed.  718; 
McClung  v.  Silliman,  6  Wheat.  604,  5  L.  ed.  840;  Cary  v.  Curtis,  3 
How.  245,  11  L.  ed.  576;  Fountain  v.  Eavenel,  17  How.  384,  15  L. 
ed.  80;  Johnson  Co.  v.  Wharton,  152  U.  S.  260,  14  S.  Ct.  608,  38  L. 
ed.  429. 

81  United  States  v.  New  Bedford  Bridge,  1  Wood.  &  M.  437,  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  15,867. 

82  Cuddy,  Petitioner,  131  U.  S.  284,  9  S.  Ct.  703,  33  L.  ed.  154. 

83  Grignon  v.  Astor,  2  How.  341,  11  L.  ed.  283;  Kemp's  Lessee  v. 
Kennedy,  5  Cr.  185,  3  L.  ed.  70. 

84  Kemp's  Lessee  v.  Kennedy,  5  Cr.  185,  3  L.  ed.  70;  Ex  parte 
Watkins,  3  Pet.  205,  7  L.  ed.  650;  Nugent  v.  State,  18  Ala.  52. 

85  Grace  v.  American  Cent.  Ins.  Co.,  109  U.  S.  283,  3  S.  Ct.  207, 
27  L.  ed.  932,  Bors  v.  Preston,  111  U.  S.  255,  4  S.  Ct.  408,  28  L.  ed. 
419;  Mansfield  etc.  By.  v.  Swan,  111  U.  S.  382,  4  S.  Ct.  511,  28  L. 
ed.  462;  Continental  Ins.  Co.  v.  Khoads,  119  U.  S.  239,  7  S.  Ct.  193, 
30  L.  ed.  3S0;  King  Bridge  Co.  v.  Otoe  Co.,  120  U.  S.  226,  7  ?.  Ct. 
552,  31  L.  ed.  514;  Lehigh  Min.  Co.  v.  Kelly,  160  U.  S.  337,  16  S. 
Ct.  311,  40  L.  ed.  444;  Hanford  v.  Davies,  163  U.  S.  279,  16  S.  Ct. 
1053,  41  L.  ed.  157;  Adams  v.  Commissioners,  23  Fed.  212;  United 
States  v.  American  Bell  Tel.  Co.,  29  Fed.  33;  Simon  v.  Hous?,  46 
Fed.  319;  Tug  Kiver  Coal  etc.  Co.  v.  Brigel,  67  Fed.  627;  Wrisiey  v. 
Rouse  Soap  (Jo.,  90  Fed.  6;  Blair  v.  Silver  etc.  Mines,  93  Fed.  335. 

86  Mossman  v.  Higgenson,  4  Dall.  14,  1  L.  ed.  720;  Hodgson  v. 
Bowerbank,  5  Cr.  303,  3  L.  ed.  308;  United  States  Bank  v.  Deveaux, 
5  Cr.  86,  3  L.  ed.  38;  American  Ins.  Co.  v.  Cotton,  1  Pet.  545.  7  L. 
ed.  242;  Livingston  v.  Jefferson,  1  Brock.  203,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8411; 
United  States  v.  Drennen,  Hemp.  320,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,992;  United 
States  v.  Alberty,  Hemp.  444,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,426. 

86a  United  States  v.  New  Bedford  Bridge,  1  Wood.  &  M.  437,  Fed. 


Art.  Ill,  §  1  Jurisdiction  of  Courts.  506 

The  inferior  federal  courts  contemplated  by  this  clause  are 
not  inferior  in  the  technical  sense  of  that  term,  but  they  are 
courts  of  limited  jurisdiction,87  and  they  can  exercise  only  that 
jurisdiction  which  is  conferred  upon  them  by  act  of  Congress,88 
either  expressly  or  by  necessary  implication.89  As  an  instance 
of  a  power  necessarily  implied,  the  power  to  punish  for  con- 
tempt is  deemed  to  be  inherent.90  The  inferior  federal  courts 
cannot  exercise  common-law  jurisdiction,91  nor  proceed  by  in- 
formation in  criminal  cases  unless  the  power  is  granted  by 
Congress.92  Their  respective  jurisdictions  must  be  defined  by 
Congress,93  and  cannot  be  enlarged  or  restricted  by  state 
laws.94 

Cas.  No.  15,867;  In  re  Scheazle,  1  Wood.  &  M.  66,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
12,734;  Smith  v.  Jackson,  1  Paine,  453,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,064. 

87  Kemp's  Lessee  v.  Kennedy,  5  Cr.  185,  3  L.  ed.  70;  McCormick 
v.  Sullivant,  10  Wheat.  199,  6  L.  ed.  300;  Kennedy  v.  Georgia  State 
Bank,  8  How.  612,  12  L.  ed.  1209;  Cuddy,  Petitioner,  131  U.  S.  284, 
9  S.   Ct.   703,   33   L.   ed.   154. 

88  Ex  parte  Cabrera,  1  Wash.  C.  C.  235,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2278;  Magill 
v.  Parsons,  4  Conn.  325. 

89  Turner  v.  Bank  of  North  America,  4  Dall.  10,  1  L.  ed.  718; 
Stuart  v.  Easton,  156  U.  S.  47,  15  S.  Ct.  268,  39  L.  ed.  341;  Cissel  v. 
McDonald,  16  Blatchf.  151,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2729;  United  States  v.  Ta- 
wanga-ca,  Hemp.  304,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,435. 

90  United  States  v.  Hudson,  7  Cr.  34,  3  L.  ed.  259;  Ex  parta 
Terry,  128  U.  S.  302,  9  S.  Ct.  79,  32  L.  ed.  405;  In  re  Debs,  158  U. 
S.  596,  15  S.  Ct.  911,  39  L.  ed.  1092. 

91  Ex  parte  Bollman,  4  Cr.  75,  2  L.  ed.  554;  United  States  v.  Hud- 
son, 7  Cr.  32,  3  L.  ed.  259;  United  States  v.  Coolidge,  1  Wheat.  415, 
4  L.  ed.  124;  United  States  v.  Bevans,  3  Wheat.  336,  4  L.  ed.  404; 
In  re  Barry,  136  U.  S.  609,  42  Fed.  122.  But  see  United  States  v. 
Eavara,  2  Dall.  297,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,122;  United  States  v.  Worrall, 
2  Dall.  384,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,766. 

92  United  States  v.  Joe,  4  Chic.  L.  N.  105,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,478. 
03   Osborne  v.  Bank  of  United  States,  9  Wheat.  738,  6  L.  ed.  204; 

Turner  v.  Bank  of  North  America,  4  Dall.  10,  1  L.  ed.  718;  Mclntire 
v.  Wood,  7  Cr.  506,  3  L.  ed.  420;  Kendall  v.  United  States,  12  Per. 
616,  9  L.  ed.  1181;  Cary  v.  Curtis,  3  How.  245,  11  L.  ed.  576;  Sheldon 
v.  Sill,  8  How.  448,  12  L.  ed.  1147;  Gaines  v.  Fuentes,  92  U.  S.  13, 
23  L.  ed.  524. 

94  United  States  v.  Peters,  5  Cr.  38,  3  L.  ed.  53;  Steamboat 
Orleans  v.  Phoebus,  11   Pet.   184,  9  L.   ed.   677;   Toland   v.   Sprague, 


507  Jurisdiction  of  Courts.  Art.  Ill,  §  1 

Notwithstanding  Congress  may  adopt  state  procedure  for  the 
federal  courts,  state  legislation  prescribing  modes  of  redress 
cannot,  after  adoption,  operate  to  deprive  the  federal  courts  of 
jurisdiction  conferred  by  citizenship  of  the  parties  to  an  ac- 
tion.95 Jurisdiction  cannot  be  conferred  on  the  courts  by  stip- 
ulation of  the  parties.96 

Congress  may  consent  to  a  second  trial  of  a  claim  against 
the  United  States,  although  a  judgment  has  been  rendered 
thereon  for  the  government.97  It  may  invest  inferior  courts 
with  power  to  issue  mandamus,98  but  it  cannot  empower  a 
commissioner  to  commit  a  person  for  an  alleged  contempt.99 
The  federal  courts  have  power  to  issue  writs  only  when  neces- 
sary in  aid  of  their  jurisdiction  in  a  case  pending,998  and 
they  can  apply  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  to  a  person  in  jail 
only  when  he  is  confined  under  and  by  the  authority  of  the 
United  States.100  In  such  case,  the  federal  courts  have  ex- 
clusive jurisdiction,  and  habeas  corpus  cannot  issue  from  a 
state  court.101  Congress  may  provide  for  the  appointment  of  a 
board  of  land  commissioners  to  settle  private  land  claims.102 

12  Pet.  330,  9  L.  ed.  1093;  Cowles  v.  Mercer  County,  7  Wall.  122,  19 
L.  ed.  86;  Lincoln  County  v.  Luning,  133  U.  S.  530,  10  S.  Ct.  363, 
33  L.  ed.  766;  Leadville  Coal  Co.  v.  McCreery,  141  U.  S.  477,  12  3. 
Ct.  28,  35  L.  ed.  824;  Mexican  Central  Ey.  Co.  v.  Pinckney,  149  IT. 
S.  194,  13  S.  Ct.  859,  37  L.  ed.  699. 

95  Chicot  Co.  v.  Sherwood,  148  U.  S.  534,  13  S.  Ct.  695,  37  L.  'ed. 
546. 

96  Byers  v.  McAuley,  149  U.  s.  618,  13  S.  Ct.  906,  37  L.  ed.  867; 
Olds  Wagon  Works  v.  Benedict,  67  Fed.  1;  Municipal  Inv.  Co.  v. 
Gardiner,  62  Fed.  955;  King  v.  McLean  Asylum,  64  Fed.  352,  26  L. 
E.  A.  784. 

97  Nock  v.  United  States,  2  Ct.  of  CI.  451. 

98  Kendall  v.  United  States,  12  Pet.  626,  9  L.  ed.  1181. 

99  Ex  parte  Doll,  7  Phila.  595,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3968. 
99a  Ex  parte  Everts,  1  Bond,  178,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4581. 

100  Coleman  v.  Tennessee,  97  U.  S.  519,  24  L.  ed.  1118;  In  re  Burns, 
136  U.  S.  590,  10  S.  Ct.  850,  34  L.  ed.  500;  Baker  v.  Grice,  169  U.  S. 
290,  18  S.  Ct.  323,  12  L.  ed.  748. 

101  Duncan  v.  Darst,  1  How.  308,  11  L.  ed.  139;  Ableman  v.  Booth, 
21  How.  523,  16  L.  ed.  169;  Tarble's  Case,  13  Wall.  402,  20  L.  ed. 
597;  Eobb  v.  Connolly,  111  U.  S.  639,  4  S.  Ct.  544,  28  L.  ed.  542. 

102  United  States  v.  Eitchie,  17  How.  530,  15  L.  ed.  236. 


Art.  Ill,  §  1  Jurisdiction  of  Courts.  508 

Once  jurisdiction  has  been  granted  to  the  federal  courts,  it 
rests  with  the  courts  themselves  to  determine  whether  a  partic- 
ular case  comes  within  that  jurisdiction.103  The  judicial  power 
resting  in  courts  cannot  be  denied  them,  and  any  act  which 
has  that  effect  in  prescribing  rules  of  decision  is  void.104  New 
rights  and  remedies  may  have  the  effect  to  increase  the  business 
of  a  court;  but  that  in  no  proper  sense  increases  its  jurisdic- 
tion.105 To  give  jurisdiction  to  a  federal  court  it  is  sufficient 
that  the  jurisdiction  may  be  found  in  the  constitution  or  the 
law,  but  the  two  must  co-operate,  the  constitution  as  the  foun- 
tain, and  the  laws  of  Congress  as  the  streams  which  convey  the 
jurisdiction  to  the  court.106 

Territorial  and  Provisional  Courts. 


The  courts  of  a  territory,  although  they  derive  their  juris- 
diction from  Congress,107  are  not  United  States  courts  contem- 
plated by  this  article,  and  so  do  not  come  within  the  purview 
of  acts  of  Congress  which  speak  of  "courts  of  the  United 
States"  only.108  These  courts  are  not  constitutional  in  the 
sense  that  the  judicial  power  conferred  by  the  constitution  can 
be  deposited  in  them.109  The  jurisdiction  with  which  they  are 
invested  is  not  a  part  of  that  judicial  power  defined  in  this 
article,  but  is  conferred  in  the  execution  of  those  general  powers 
which  Congress  possesses  over  the  territories.110 

103  United  States  v.  Peters,  5  Cr.  136,  3  L.  ed.  53;  Ableman  v. 
Booth,  21  How.  506,  10  L.  ed.  169;  Freeman  v.  Howe,  24  How.  459, 
16  L.  ed.  749;  Ex  parte  Tyler,  149  U.  S.  164,  13  S.  Ct.  785,  37  L. 
ed.  689;  Missouri  Pac.  Ey.  Co.  v.  Fitzgerald,  160  U.  S.  582,  16  S.  Ct. 
389,  40  L.  ed.  536. 

104  Klein's  Case,  7  Ct.  of  CI.  240;  Witkowski's  Case,  7  Ct.  of  CI. 
393. 

105  Buford  v.  Holley,  28  Fed.  680. 

iog  United   States   v.  Burlington   etc.   Ferry   Co.,   21  Fed.   331. 

107  The  City  of  Panama,  101  U.  S.  460,  25  L.  ed.  1061. 

108  Good  v.  Martin,  95  U.  S.  98,  24  L.  ed.  341;  The  City  of  Panama, 
101  U.  S.  460,  25  L.  ed.  1061;  McAllister  v.  United  States,  141  U. 
S.  174,  11  S.  Ct.  949,  35  L.  ed.  693;  United  States  v.  McMillan,  165 
U.  S.  510,  41  L.  ed.  805. 

109  American  Ins.  Co.  v.  Cotton,  1  Pet.  546,  7  L.  ed.  242. 

HO  American  Ins.  Co.  v.  Cotton,  1  Pet.  546,  7  L.  ed.  242;  United 
States  v.  Coe,  155  U.  S.  85,  15  S.  Ct.  19,  39  L.  ed.  76;  Arizona  v.  Duf- 


509  Jurisdiction  of  State  Courts.       Art.  Ill,  §  1 

The  fact  that  the  judges  of  territorial  courts  are  appointed 
by  the  President  under  act  of  Congress  does  not  make  the 
courts  which  they  hold  courts  of  the  United  States.111  Broadly 
speaking,  however,  the  territorial  district  courts  are  dual  in 
their  nature  and  sit  both  as  territorial  and  federal  courts.112 
Congress  may  define  the  jurisdiction  of  territorial  courts,  or 
delegate  the  authority  to  the  territorial  government.113 

This  article  does  not  make  any  provision  for  abnormal  con- 
ditions in  conquered  territory,  nor  permit  the  establishment  by 
Congress  of  courts  in  insurrectionary  districts.114  In  the  per- 
formance of  the  duty  of  the  national  government,  as  a  belliger- 
ent, to  protect  persons  and  property,  the  President  has  power, 
incident  to  military  occupation  to  establish  provisional  courts 
at  the  seat  of  war;115  but  such  courts  cannot  decide  cases  of 
prize  of  war  as  ordinary  courts  of  admiralty.116 

Authority  of  State  Courts. 

Courts  of  the  United  States  and  of  the  states  are  independ- 
ent of  each  other  in  matters  within  their  respective  jurisdic- 
tions,117 the  jurisdiction  of  the  state  courts  not  having  been  af- 
fected by  the  grant  of  judicial  power  to  the  general  govern- 
ment, except  where  such  jurisdiction  would  be  incompatible 
with  the  powers    granted    to  the    United  States.118     In  some 

field,  1  Ariz.  Ter.  69,  25  Pac.  476.     See,  also,  Breuner  v.  Porter,  9  How. 
240,  13  L.  ed.  119. 

in  Clinton  v.  Englebreeht,  13  Wall.  447,  20  L.  ed.  659;  McAllister 
v.  United  States,  141  U.  S.  174,  11  S.  Ct.  949,  35  L.  ed.  693. 

112  Gon-Shay-Ee,  Petitioner,  130  U.  S.  349,  9  S.  Ct.  542,  32  L. 
ed.  973;  United  States  v.  Pridgeon,  153  U.  S.  58,  14  S.  Ct.  746,  38  L. 
ed.  631. 

113  Leitensdorfer  v.  Webb,  20  How.  176,  15  L.  ed.  891. 

114  Mechanics'  etc.  Bank  v.  Union  Bank,  22  Wall.  296,  22  L.  ed. 
871;  The  Grapeshot,  9  Wall.  132,  19  L.  ed.  651. 

U5  The  Grapeshot,  9  Wall.  132,  19  L.  ed.  651;  Mechanics'  etc. 
Bank  v.  Union  Bank,  22  Wall.  296,  22  L.  ed.  871;  Lewis  v.  Cocks, 
23  Wall.  469,  23  L.  ed.   70. 

116  Jecker  v.  Montgomery,   13  How.   515,  14  L.   ed.   240. 

U7  Taylor  v.  Carryl,  20  How.  597,  15  L.  ed.  1028;  Supervisors  '. 
Durant,  9  Wall.  418,  19  L.  ed.  732. 

us  Martin  v.  Hunter,  1  Wheat.  304,  4  L.  ed.  97;  Houston  v.  Moore, 


Art.  Ill,  §  1      Jurisdiction  of  State  Courts.  510 

cases  from  their  character,  the  federal  judicial  power  is  neces- 
sarily exclusive  of  all  state  authority ;  in  others  it  may  he  made 
so  at  the  option  of  CongTcss,  or  it  may  be  exercised  concur- 
rently with  that  of  the  states.119 

Where  jurisdiction  may  he  conferred  upon  federal  courts,  it 
may  be  made  exclusive;120  but  if  exclusive  jurisdiction  be 
neither  express  nor  implied,  state  courts  have  concurrent  juris- 
diction whenever,  by  their  own  constitution,  they  are  compe- 
tent to  take  it.121  If  the  jurisdiction  of  the  federal  courts  i& 
paramount  in  certain  cases  the  state  courts  are  prohibited  from 
taking  any  cognizance  of  such  cases,122  and  all  proceedings  in 
a  state  court  are  void.123  Thus  a  statute  authorizing  proceed- 
ings in  a  state  court  in  admiralty  causes  is  unconstitutional.124 
Congress  cannot  confer  jurisdiction  on  a  state  court.125 

The  jurisdiction  of  a  state  is  coextensive  with  its  territory,126 

5  Wheat.  27,  5  L.  ed.  19;  Teal  v.  Felton,  12  How.  284,  13  L.  ed.  990; 
Claflin  v.  Houseman,  93  TJ.  S.  136,  23  L.  ed.  833;  In  re  Abraham,  93 
Fed.  778;  State  v.  Randall,  2  Aik.  89;  Delafield  v.  State,  2  Hill,  159; 
United  States  v.  Lathrop,  17  Johns.  4;  Jackson  v.  Rose,  2  Va.  Cas. 
34. 

119  Railway  Co.  v.  Whitton,  13  Wall.  288,  20  L.  ed.  571;  The 
Steamship  Oregon,  14  Saw.  463,  45  Fed.  77;  Hartman  v.  Fishbeek, 
18  Fed.  295;  Wyman  v.  Mathews,  53  Fed.  680;  Prentice  v.  Duluth 
Storage  Co.,   58   Fed.  442. 

120  Martin  v.  Hunter,  1  Wheat.  337,  4  L.  ed.  97;  Claflin  v.  House- 
man, 93  TJ.  S.  136,  23  L.  ed.  833. 

121  Claflin  v.  Houseman,  93  U.  S.  136,  23  L.  ed.  833. 

122  Slocum  v.  Mayberry,  2  Wheat.  1,  4  L.  ed.  169;  Osborn  v.  Bank 
of  United  States,  9  Wheat.  738,  6  L.  ed.  204;  United  States  v.  Peters, 
5  Cr.  115,  3  L.  ed.  53;  Duncan  v.  Darst,  1  How.  301,  11  L.  ed.  139; 
McNutt  v.  Bland,  2  How.  16,  11  L.  ed.  159;  Bank  of  Augusta  v. 
Earle,  13  Pet.  590,  10  L.  ed.  274. 

123  Cohen  v.  Solomon,  66  Fed.  411. 

124  The  Moses  Taylor,  4  Wall.  427,  18  L.  ed.  397;  The  Hine  v. 
Trevor,  4  Wall.  555,  18  L.  ed.  451;  The  Lottawanna,  21  Wall.  580,  22 
L.  ed.  654;  The  J.  E.  Rumbell,  148  U.  S.  12,  13  S.  Ct.  498,  37  L.  ed. 
345;  Crawford  v.  The  Caroline  Reed,  42  Cal.  469;  Bird  v.  The  Jose- 
phine, 39  N.  Y.  19;  Brookman  v.  Hamill,  43  N.  Y.  554. 

125  Houston  v.  Moore,  5  Wheat.  27,  5  L.  ed.  19;  Huber  v.  Reily, 
53  Pa.  St.  112. 

126  United  States  v.  Bevans,  3.  Wheat.  387,  4  L.  ed.  404;  Pennoyer 
v.  Neff,  95  U.  S.  722,  24  L.  ed.  565;  Arndt  v.  Griggs,  134  U.  S.  323, 


511  Jurisdiction  of  State  Courts.      Art.  Ill,  §  1 

and  the  legislature  may  confer  on  the  state  courts  jurisdiction 
within  those  limits.127  But  the  legislature  cannot  confer  any 
jurisdiction  on  the  federal  courts  nor  prescribe  the  means  or 
mode  of  its  exercise.128 

No  part  of  the  criminal  jurisdiction  can  be  delegated  by  Con- 
gress to  state  courts,129  but  the  same  act  may,  as  to  its  char- 
acter and  tendencies  and  the  consequences  involved,  constitute 
an  offense  against  both  the  state  and  federal  governments, 
and  may  draw  to  its  commission  the  penalties  denounced  by 
either,130  and  a  crime  not  made  an  offense  under  federal  law 
is  cognizable  in  a  state  court.131  So  state  courts  may  punish 
for  counterfeiting  under  a  state  law  unless  exclusive  jurisdic- 
tion is  vested  in  the  federal  courts,132  and  a  state  may  provide 
a  penalty  for  the  offense  of  circulating  counterfeit  money.133 
So,  also,  a  state  court  has  jurisdiction  to  punish  for  the  forgery 
of  a  land  warrant,  where  it  has  not  been  made  a  crime  by  act 
of  Congress,134  or  may  commit  a  prisoner  to  be  delivered  over 
for  prosecution  to  the  United  States.135     A  state  court  may  en- 

10  S.  Ct.  557,  33  L.  ed.  918;  Wilson  v.  Seligman,  144  U.  S.  44,  12  S. 
Ct.  541,  36  L.  ed.  338. 

127  Galpin  v.  Gage,  18  Wall.  367,  21  L.  ed.  959;  Pennoyer  v.  Neff, 
95   U.   S.  720,   24  L.   ed.   565. 

128  Palmer  v.  Allen,  7  Cr.  565,  3  L.  ed.  436;  Ogden  v.  Saunders, 
12  Wheat.  367,  6  L.  ed.  606;  Duncan  v.  Darst,  1  How.  305, 11  L.  ed.  139; 
Clark  v.  Smith,  13  Pet.  203,  10  L.  ed.  123;  Kearney  v.  Farmers'  etc. 
Bank,  16  Pet.  94,  10  L.  ed.  897;  St.  Louis  etc.  Ry.  v.  Vickers,  122 
TJ.  S.  363,  7  S.  Ct.  1216,  30  L.  ed.  1161. 

129  Martin  v.  Hunter,  1  Wheat.  304,  4  L.  ed.  97;  State  v.  Wells, 
2  Hill  (S.  C),  687;  Huber  v.  Reily,  53  Pa.  St.  112;  State  v.  Mc- 
Bride,  Eice,  400;  Commonwealth  v.  Feely,  1  Va.  Cas.  321. 

130  United  States  v.  Marigold,  9  How.  569,  13  L.  ed.  257;  Crosa 
v.  North  Carolina,  132  U.  S.  139,  10  S.  Ct.  47,  33  L.  ed.  287;  Crossley 
v.  California,  168  U.  S.  641,  18  S.  Ct.  242,  42  L.  ed.  610. 

131  State  v.  Buchanan,  5  Har.  &  J.  317,  9  Am.  ,Dec.  534. 

132  White  v.  Commonwealth,  4  Binn.  418;  State  v.  Eandall,  2  Aik. 
89;  State  v.  Tutt,  2  Bail:  44,  21  Am.  Dec.  508. 

133  Fox  v.  Ohio,  5  How.  433,  4  L.  ed.  213. 

134  Commonwealth  v.  Schaffer,  4  Dall.  App.  86. 

135  Prigg  v.  Commonwealth,  16  Pet.  539,  10  L.  ed.  1060;  Ex  parti 
Gist,  26  Ala.  156;  Ex  parte  Smith,  5  Cow.  273;  Ex  parte  Martin,  2 
Paine,  348,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9154;  Ex  parte  Pool,  2  Va.  Cas.  276. 


Art.  Ill,  §  1      Jurisdiction  of  State  Courts.  512 

tertain  an  action  to  recover  a  penalty  for  the  violation  of  a 
federal  statute.136 

Wliere  federal  and  state  courts  have  concurrent  jurisdiction 
in  a  civil  or  criminal  case  the  tribunal  which  first  obtains  juris- 
diction holds  it,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  other,  until  its  duty  is 
performed;137  the  acquisition  of  jurisdiction  by  the  one  de- 
vests the  other  of  all  jurisdiction.138  The  fact  that  the  sub- 
ject of  interstate  commerce  is  beyond  the  legislative  control  of 
the  states  does  not,  ipso  facto,  prevent  state  courts  from  exer- 
cising jurisdiction  over  cases  arising  from  such  commerce.139 

The  sphere  of  action  appropriated  to  the  United  States  is 
beyond  the  reach  of  the  judicial  process  issued  by  a  state  judge 
or  a  state  court,140  and  the  same  is  true  of  state  courts,  which 
within  their  jurisdiction  cannot  be  interfered  with  by  federal 
process.141  So  a  state  court  cannot  grant  an  injunction  against 
the  enforcement  of  a  remedy  adjudged  by  a  federal  court  which 
acquired  jurisdiction  first;142  nor  enjoin  the  service  of  process 
in  a  suit  first  instituted  in  a  federal  court.143     A  state  court 

136  Claflin  v.  Houseman,  93  U.  S.  136,  23  L.  ed.  833;  Stearns  v. 
United  States,  2  Paine,  300,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,341;  Buckwalter  v. 
United  States,  11  Serg.  &  E.  193.  But  see  Ely  v.  Peck,  7  Conn. 
239;  Davidson  v.  Champlin,  7  Conn.  244;  Haney  v.  Sharp,  1  Dana, 
442. 

137  Smith  v.  Mclver,  9  Wheat.  535,  6  L.  ed.  152;  Peck  v.  Jenness, 
7  How.  624,  12  L.  ed.  841;  Buck  v.  Colbath,  3  Wall.  345,  18  L.  ed. 
257;  Pulliam  v.  Osborne,  17  How.  475,  15  L.  ed.  154;  Taylor  v. 
Taintor,  16  Wall.  370,  21  L.  ed.  287;  Farmers'  L.  etc.  Co.  v.  Lake 

(St.  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  177  U.  S.  62,  20  S.  Ct.  564,  44  L.  ed.  667. 

138  Covell  v.  Heyman,  111  U.  S.  182,  4  S.  Ct.  355,  28  L.  ed.  390; 
Moran  v.  Sturges,  154  U.  S.  274,  14  S.  Ct.  1024,  38  L.  ed.  981. 

139  Murray  v.  Chicago  etc.  Ey.  Co.,  62  Fed.  24. 

140  Ableman  v.  Booth,  21  How.  516,  16  L.  ed.  169;  Eiggs  v.  John- 
son County,  6  Wall.  199,  18  L.  ed.  768;  Moran  v.  Sturges,  154  U.  S. 
286,  4  S.  Ct.  1019,  38  L.  ed.  981. 

141  Amy  v.  Supervisors,  11  Wall.  138,  20  L.  ed.  101;  Watson  v. 
Jones,  13  Wall.  720,  20  L.  ed.  666;  Nougue  v.  Clapp,  101  U.  S.  555, 
25  L.  ed.  1026. 

142  Central  Nat.  Bank  v.  Stevens,  169  U.  S.  462,  18  S.  Ct.  403,  42 
L.  ed.  807. 

143  Farmers'  L.  etc.  Co.  v.  Lake  St.  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  177  U.  S.  61, 
20  S.   Ct.  564,  44  L.   ed.   667. 


513  Eemoval  of  Causes.  Art.  Ill,  §  1 

has  no  jurisdiction  of  a  proceeding  to  deprive  a  federal  court 
receiver  of  the  possession  of  property  committed  to  him,144  nor 
has  a  state  court  jurisdiction  of  a  suit  against  a  federal  court 
receiver  for  his  misconduct.145  Property  in  the  possession  of  a 
court  or  its  officer  cannot  be  disturbed  under  process  of  a  court 
of  concurrent  jurisdiction,  state  or  federal.146 

Habeas  corpus  cannot  issue  from  a  state  court  to  secure  the 
release  of  a  person  held  under  the  authority  of  federal  laws;147 
but  subject  to  the  exclusive  authority  of  the  federal  courts  to 
determine  the  legality  of  a  detention  under  federal  authority, 
state  courts  may  determine  the  legality  of  the  restraint  of  a 
person  held  within  state  limits,  although  depending  on  the 
federal  constitution  and  laws.148  The  extent  of  the  federal 
courts'  power  to  inquire  into  the  legality  of  restraint  under 
the  order  of  a  state  court  under  state  laws  is  limited  to  a  de- 
termination of  the  question  whether  the  restraint  is  in  violation 
of  the  federal  constitution.149 

Removal  and  Transfer  of  Causes. 

Under  this  clause  Congress  may  provide  for  the  transfer  of 
a  suit  from  one  inferior  tribunal  to  another,150  and  for  the  re- 
moval from  state  to  federal  courts    of  causes  to  which  the  ju- 

144  Calhoun  v.  Lanaux,  127  U.  S.  640,  8  S.  Ct.  1345,  32  L.  ed.  297. 

145  Baggs  v.  Martin,  179  U.  S.  209,  21  S.  Ct.  109,  45  L.  ed.  155. 

146  Hagan  v.  Lucas,  10  Pet.  404,  9  L.  ed.  470;  Tua  v.  Carriers, 
117  U.  S.  208,  6  S.  Ct.  565,  29  L.  ed.  855;  Moran  v.  Sturges,  154  U. 
S.  274,  14  S.  Ct.  1019,  38  L.  ed.  981;  In  re  Johnson,  167  U.  S.  125, 
17  S.  Ct.  735,  42  L.  ed.  103. 

147  Duncan  v.  Darst,  1  How.  308,  11  L.  ed.  139;  Ableman  v.  Booth, 
21  How.  523,  16  L.  ed.  169;  Tarble's  Case,  13  Wall.  402,  20  L.  ed.  597. 

148  Robb  v.  Connolly,  111  IT.  S.  639,  4  S.  Ct.  544,  28  L.  ed.  542; 
Cook  v.  Hart,  146  U.  S.  195,  13  S.  Ct.  44,  36.  L.  ed.  934. 

149  In  re  Wood,  140  U.  S.  289,  11  S.  Ct.  738,  35  L.  ed.  505;  Cook 
v.  Hart,  146  U.  S.  194,  13  S.  Ct.  40,  36  L.  ed.  934;  Bergeman  v.  Backer, 
157  U.  S.  659,  15  S.  Ct.  727,  39  L.  ed.  845;  Draper  v.  United  States, 
164  U.  S.  247,  17  S.  Ct.  107,  41  L.  ed.  419. 

150  Stuart  v.  Laird,  1  Cr.  309,  2  L.  ed.  115;  United  States  v. 
Eitchie,  17  How.  530,  15  L.  ed.  236;  Fremont  v.  United  States,  17 
How.  542,  15  L.  ed.  241;  United  States  v.  Haynes,  29  Fed.  696. 

Notes  on  Constitution — 33 


Art.  Ill,  §  1  Bemoval  of  Causes.  514 

dicial  power  of  the  United  States  extends.151  This  power  is 
not  to  be  found  expressed  in  any  grant  to  Congress;  it  is  to 
be  implied  from  the  power  of  Congress  to  distribute  the  ju- 
dicial power,  and  affords  an  indirect  means  by  which  the  federal 
courts  may  acquire  jurisdiction.152  Congress  has  no  power, 
however,  to  remit  to  a  special  circuit  court  the  business  pend- 
ing for  trial  before  the  stated  circuit  court.153  The  transfer 
of  suits  pending  in  a  provisional  court  is  also  within  the  power 
of  Congress.154 

A  cause  may  be  removed  from  a  state  to  a  federal  court  where 
it  arises  under  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States, 
as  well  as  where  it  arises  between  citizens  of  different  states,155 
and  it  is  for  Congress  to  say  at  what  time  the  right  shall  be 
invoked,  and  at  what  stage  of  the  proceedings  a  case  may  be 
removed.156  Congress  may  authorize  removal  before  or  after 
judgment,  and  regulate  the  method,157  and  may  prescribe  a 
rule  of  limitations  for  removal  which  shall  be  binding  on  both 
state  and  federal  courts.158 

151  Martin  v.  Hunter,  1  Wheat.  304,  4  L.  ed.  97;  Mayor  v.  Cooper, 
6  Wall.  252,  18  L.  ed.  851;  Eailroad  Co.  v.  Whitton,  13  Wall.  288,  20 
L.  ed.  571;  Insurance  Co.  v.  Dunn,  19  Wall.  226,  22  L.  ed.  68;  Murray 
v.  Patrie,  5  Blatchf.  343,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9967;  Fisk  v.  Union  Pacific 
E.  E.  Co.,  6  Blatchf.  362,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  362;  Andrews  v.  Garrett,  1 
Flipp.  448,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  375;  Clark  v.  Dick,  1  Dill.  8,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
2818;  Johnson  v.  Monell,  Woolw.  390,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7399;  Birdseye 
v.  Shaeffer,  37  Fed.  824;  McCormick  v.  Humphrey,  27  Ind.  144;  Tod 
v.  Fairfield,  15  Ohio  St.  377;  Hodgson  v.  Millward,  3  Grant,  41S; 
Kulp  v.  Eicketts,  3  Grant,  420;  Greely  v.  Townsend,  25  Cal.  604. 

152  Eailroad  Co.  v.  Whitton,  13  Wall.  270,  20  L.  ed.  571;  Martin 
v.  Hunter,  1  Wheat.  304,  4  L.   ed.  97. 

153  United  States  v.  Hamilton,  3  Dal!  18,  1  L.  ed.  490. 

154  Leitensdorfer  v.  Webb,  20  How.  182,  15  L.  ed.  891;  The  Grape- 
shot,  7  Wall.  564,  19  L.  ed.  89;  Edwards  v.  Tanneret,  12  Wall.  449, 
20  L.  ed.  415. 

155  Boom  Co.  v.  Patterson,  98  U.  S.  406,  25  L.  ed.  206;  Ames  v. 
Kansas,  111  U.  S.  461,  4  S.  Ct.  437,  28  L.  ed.  482;  Kulp  v.  Eicketta, 
3   Grant,  420. 

156  Gaines  v.  Fuentes,  92  U.  S.  10,  23  L.  ed.  524. 

157  Martin  v.  Hunter,  1  Wheat.  350,  4  L.  ed.  97. 

158  Mitchell  v.  Clark,  110  U.  S.  641,  4  S.  Ct.  170,  28  L.  ed.  279. 


515  Kemoval  of  Causes.  Art.  Ill,  §  1 

A  state  cannot  take  away  the  privilege  conferred  upon  citizens 
of  other  states  to  sue  in  the  federal  courts  by  providing  a  special 
remedy  in  its  own  courts;159  nor  can  a  state  forbid  the  removal 
>of  causes  to  the  federal  courts.  So  a  statute  prohibiting  foreign 
corporations  from  doing  business  in  the  state  without  filing  an 
agreement  not  to  remove  causes  is  void,  and  an  agreement  pur- 
suant thereto  is  not  binding.100  On  the  other  hand,  it  has  been 
held  that  as  a  state  may  prescribe  any  terms  it  sees  fit  upon 
which  foreign  corporations  shall  do  business,  and  it  may  pro- 
vide that  in  case  such  a  corporation  removes  a  cause  to  the 
federal  courts,  the  Secretary  of  State  may  revoke  its  license  to 
do  business.161  A  statute  requiring  foreign  corporations  to 
submit  to  service  of  process  may  serve  to  give  the  proper  state 
courts  jurisdiction  of  foreign  corporations.162  Parties  to  a 
suit  cannot,  by  agreement,  oust  the  jurisdiction  of  the  federal 
courts,163  but  the  right  of  removal  is  inconsistent  with  the  vol- 
untary submission  to  a  state  court's  jurisdiction,164  and  the 
right  may  be  waived  by  such  submission.165 

159  Mason  v.  Boom  Co.,  3  Wall.  Jr.  252,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9232. 

160  Insurance  Co.  v.  Morse,  20  Wall.  458,  22  L.  ed.  365;  Doyle  v. 
Continental  Ins.  Co.,  94  IT.  S.  538,  24  L.  ed.  148;  Barron  v.  Burnside, 
121  U.  S.  200,  7  S.  Ct.  931,  30  L.  ed.  915;  Southern  Pacific  Co.  v. 
Denton,  146  U.  S.  207,  13  S.  Ct.  44,  36  L.  ed.  942;  Chicago  etc.  By. 
Co.  v.  Becker,  32  Fed.  853;  Bigelow  v.  Nickerson,  70  Fed.  121,  30 
L.  B.  A.  336;  Commonwealth  v.  East  Tennessee,  97  Ky.  244,  30  S. 
W.  610. 

161  Doyle  v.  Continental  Ins.  Co.,  94  U.  S.  540,  24  L.  ed.  148; 
Phenix  Ins.  Co.  v.  Burdett,  112  Ind.  205,  13  N.  E.  705;  State  v.  In- 
surance Co.,  115  Ind.  266,  17  N.  E.  578;  State  v.  Phipps,  50  Kan.  617. 
34  Am.  St.  Rep.  157,  31  Pac.  1099,  18  L.  R.  A.  657;  State  v.  Stone, 
118  Mo.  401,  40  Am.  St.  Rep.  394,  24  S.  W.  166,  25  L.  R.  A.  243. 

162  Southern  Pacific  Co.  v.  Denton,  146  U.  S.  207,  13  S.  Ct.  44, 
36  L.  ed.  942. 

163  Davis  v.  Packard,  6  Pet.  41,  8  L.  ed.  312,  7  Pet.  276,  8  L.  ed. 
684;  Ducat  v.  Chicago,  10  Wall.  415,  19  L.  ed.  972;  Martin  v.  Balti- 
more etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  151  U.  S.  689,  14  S.  Ct.  533,  38  L.  ed.  311;  Hobbs 
v.  Manhattan  Ins.  Co.,  56  Me.  417,  96  Am.  Dec.  472. 

164  Manning  v.  Amy,  140  U.  S.  141,  11  S.  Ct.  707,  35  L.  ed.  386. 

165  Brooks  v.  Clark,  119  U.  S.  513,  7  S.  Ct.  301,  30  L.  ed.  482;  Han- 
over Bank  v.  Smith,  13  Blatchf.  225,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6035. 


Art.  Ill,  §  1  Judges.  616 

—  Judges. 

This  clause  removes  from  Congress  all  control  over  the  ten- 
ure of  office  of  federal  judges,  and  precludes  any  diminution 
in  their  compensation  during  their  term  of  office.166  Judges 
of  inferior  federal  courts  established  by  Congress  must  be  ap- 
pointed to  hold  office  during  good  behavior.167  The  extra  com- 
pensation received  by  a  district  judge  holding  court  outside  his 
own  district  is  no  part  of  his  official  salary.168  The  fees  al- 
lowed to  justices  of  the  peace  in  the  District  of  Columbia  can- 
not be  diminished  during  their  continuance  in  office.169  The 
imposition  of  a  tax  upon  the  salary  of  a  judge  is  in  violation 
of  this  clause.170  A  person  appointed  to  be  judge  of  a  terri- 
torial court  is  not  contemplated  by  this  clause,171  and  hence 
the  constitution  is  not  violated  by  a  statute  prescribing  a  fixed 
term  of  years  for  the  office  of  such  a  judge  or  authorizing  his 
displacement.172  The  provision  that  the  compensation  shall 
not  be  reduced  accordingly  has  no  application  to  judges  of  ter- 
ritorial courts.173 

166  Martin  v.  Hunter,  1  Wheat.  304,  4  L.  ed.  97. 

167  United  States  v.  Ferreira,  13  How.  49,  14  L.  ed.  42;  United 
States  v.  Todd,  13  How.  52,  note;  Hayburn's  Case,  2  Dall.  410,  note, 
1  L.  ed.  436. 

168  Benedict  v.  United  States,  176  U.  S.  361,  20  S.  Ct.  458,  44 
L.  ed.  503. 

169  United  States  v.  Moore,  3  Or.  160,  2  L.  ed.  397. 

170  Commonwealth  v.  Mann,  5  Watts  &  S.  415. 

171  Wingard  v.  United  States,  141  U.  S.  201,  11  S.  Ct.  959,  35 
L.  ed.  719. 

17  2  American  Ins.   Co.  v.   Cotton,  1   Pet.   546,  7  L.   ed.   242;   Mc- 
Allister v.  United  States,  141  U.  S.  188,  11  S.  Ct.  949,  35  L.  ed.  693. 
173  Fisher's  Case,  15  Ct.  of  CI.  323. 


.517  Extent  of  Judicial  Power.     Art.  Ill,  §  2,  CI.  1 


SECTION  2. 

JUDICIAL  POWEES. 

1.  Jurisdiction  of  Courts  in  general. 

2.  Of  Supreme  Court,  original  and  appellate. 

3.  Jury  trials,  place  of  trial. 

1.  The  judicial  power  shall  extend  to  all  cases,  in 
law  and  equity,  arising  under  this  Constitution,  the 
laws  of  the  United  States,  and  treaties  made,  or  which 
shall  be  made,  under  their  authority; — to  all  cases  af- 
fecting ambassadors,  other  public  ministers,  and  con- 
suls;— to  all  cases  of  admiralty  and  maritime  jurisdic- 
tion ; — to  controversies  to  which  the  United  States  shall 
be  a  party; — to  controversies  between  two  or  more 
States; — between  a  State  and  citizens  of  another  State; 
— between  citizens  of  different  States; — between  citi- 
zens of  the  same  State  claiming  lands  under  grants  of 
different  States,  and  between  a  State,  or  the  citizens 
thereof,  and  foreign  states,  citizens  or  subjects. 

Extent  of  the  Judicial  Power. 

The  object  of  this  section  is  to  define  the  judicial  power 
which  the  constitution  intended  to  be  confined  to  courts  created 
by  Congress.1  It  enables  the  judicial  department  to  receive 
jurisdiction  to  the  full  extent  of  the  constitution,  laws  and 
treaties  of  the  United  States.  When  any  question  respecting 
them  is  submitted  by  a  party  who  asserts  his  rights  in  the  form 
prescribed  by  law,  it  then  becomes  a  "case"  of  which  the  federal' 
courts  have  cognizance.2  "Shall  extend"  is  used  in  an  impera- 
tive sense,  and  imports  an  absolute  grant  of  power.3     In  thus  de- 

1  Eobertson  v.  Baldwin,  165  U.  S.  279,  17  S.  Ct.  326,  41  L.  ed.  715. 

2  Osborne  v.  United  States  Bank,  9  Wheat.  819,  6  L.  ed.  204. 

3  Martin  v.  Hunter,  1  Wheat.  304,  4  L.  ed.  97. 


Art.  Ill,  §  2,  CI.  1     Extent  of  Judicial  Power.  518 

fining  the  judicial  power  the  constitution  contemplates  the  cases 
enumerated  as  being  in  three  distinct  classes.  In  the  latter  class 
as  to  controversies,  Congress  may  qualify  the  jurisdiction,  either 
original  or  appellate,4  and  the  grant  of  jurisdiction  over  one  of 
the  classes  does  not  confer  any  jurisdiction  over  either  of  the 
■other  two.5  Jurisdiction  is  the  power  to  hear  and  determine  the 
subject  matter  in  controversy  between  the  parties  to  a  suit;  to 
adjudicate  or  exercise  judicial  power  over  it.6  It  has  reference 
(1)  to  the  court's  power  over  the  parties;  (2)  over  the  subject 
matter,  i.  e.,  the  nature  of  the  cause  of  action;  (3)  over  the 
property  in  contest;  (4)  and  to  its  authority  to  render  judg- 
ment.7 An  affirmative  description  of  jurisdiction  implies  a 
negative  on  the  exercise  of  power  not  comprehended  within  it.8 
How  jurisdiction  shall  be  acquired,  whether  original  or  appel- 
late, and  the  mode  of  procedure,  are  left  to  the  wisdom  of  the 
legislature;9  so  Congress  may  give  the  federal  courts  original 
jurisdiction  in  any  case  to  which  appellate  jurisdiction  ex- 
tends,10 and  may  invest  inferior  federal  courts  with  jurisdic- 
tion over  matters  in  which  the  supreme  court  has  original,  but 
not  exclusive,  jurisdiction,11  and  lawfully  provide  for  suits,  at 
the  option  of  the  parties,  on  all  controversies  between  citizens 
of  different  states.12 

Congress  is  empowered  to  give  the  federal  courts  jurisdiction 
over  every  case  wherein  a  question  within  the  judicial  power 
is  an  ingredient.13     The  questions  involved  in  a  case  must  de- 

4  Martin  v.  Hunter,  1  Wheat.  304,  4  L.  ed.  97;  The  Moses  Taylor, 
4  Wall.  411,  18  L.  ed.  397. 

5  American  Ins.  Co.  v.  Cotton,  1  Pet.  545,  7  L.  ed.  242. 

6  United  States  v.  Arredondo,  6  Pet.  709,  8  L.  ed.  547;  Ehode 
Island  v.  Massachusetts,  12  Pet.  718,  9  L.  ed.  1233;  Grignon  v.  Astor, 
2  How.  338,  11  L.  ed.  283;  Ex  parte  McCardle,  7  Wall.  514,  19  L.  ed. 
264;  Windsor  v.  McVeigh,  93  U.  S.  284,  23  L.  ed.  914;  Overby  v.  Gor- 
don, 177  U.  S.  220,  20  S.  Ct.  603,  44  L.  ed.  741. 

7  Cooper  v.  Keynolds,  10  Wall.  316,  19  L.  ed.  931. 

8  Marbury  v.  Madison,  1  Cr.  173,  2  L.  ed.  60;  National  Exchango 
Bank  v.  Peters,  144  U.  S.  573,  12  S.  Ct.  767,  36  L.  ed.  545. 

9  Mayor  v.  Cooper,  6  Wall.  247,  18  L.  ed.  851. 

10  Osborne  v.  Bank  of  United  States,  9  Wheat.  820,  6  L.  ed.  204. 
u  Ames  v.  Kansas,  111  U.  S.  469,  4  S.  Ct.  437,  28  L.  ed.  482. 

12  Gaines  v.  Fuentes,  92  U.  S.  18,  23  L.  ed.  524. 

13  Osborne  v.  United  States  Bank,  9  Wheat.  823,  6  L.  ed.  204, 


519  Extent  of  Judicial  Power.     Art.  Ill,  §  2,  CI.  1 

termine  its  character  in  this  respect,  and  if  there  are  such 
as  to  bring  the  case  within  the  judicial  power,  it  is  imma- 
terial that  other  questions  of  law  or  fact  are  involved.14  So 
the  judicial  power  extends  to  the  trial  of  a  revenue  officer 
for  an  act  done  in  the  discharge  of  his  duty;15  to  a  suit  in- 
volving the  rights  of  a  railroad  company  as  a  corporation  of 
the  United  States;16  to  a  case  involving  the  construction  of  a 
bankruptcy  law;17  to  a  suit  involving  the  application  of  the 
interstate  commerce  act;18  to  a  suit  by  or  against  a  national 
bank.19  In  all  such  cases  jurisdiction  of  the  federal  courts 
may  be  made  exclusive  at  the  will  of  Congress.20 

The  judicial  power  is  the  instrument  provided  for  adminis- 
tering security  to  an  officer  acting  in  the  discharge  of  his 
duty  ;2 1  the  power  to  declare  what  the  law  is.22  It  covers  every 
legislative  act  of  Congress,23  and  is  the  final  arbiter  in  matters 
involving  the  construction  of  the  constitution  ;24  and  the  federal 

14  Osborne  v.  "United  States  Bank,  9  Wheat.  823,  6  L.  ed.  204; 
Tennessee  v.  Davis,  100  U.  S.  264,  25  L.  ed.  648;  Eoberts  v.  North- 
ern Pac.  E.  E.  Co.,  158  U.  S.  22,  15  S.  Ct.  763,  39  L.  ed.  873;  Nashville 
etc.  E.  E.  v.  Taylor,  86  Fed.  177;  Fisk  v.  Union  Pacific  E.  E.  Co.,  8 
Blatchf.  248,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4828. 

15  Tennessee  v.  Davis,  100  U.  S.  264,  25  L.  ed.  648. 

16  Eoterts  v.  Northern  Pacific  E.  E.  Co.,  158  U.  S.  22,  15  S.  Ct. 
763",  39  L.  ed.  873. 

it   Connor  v.  Scott,  4  Dill.  247,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3119. 
is  Toledo  etc.  E.  E.  Co.    v.  Pennsylvania  Co.,  54  Fed.  749,  19  L. 
E.  A.  387. 

19  Osborne  v.  United  States  Bank,  9  Wheat.  738,  &  L.  ed.  204; 
Petrie  v.  Commercial  Bank,  142  U.  S.  648,  12  S.  Ct.  326,  35  L.  ed. 
1144;  Ex  parte  Jones,  164  U.  S.  692,  17  S.  Ct.  223,  41  L.  ed.  601. 

20  Martin  v.  Hunter,  1  Wheat.  337,  4  L.  ed.  97;  The  Moses  Taylor, 
4  Wall.  428,  18  L.  ed.  397;  The  Glide,  167  U  S.  615,  17  S.  Ct.  933, 
42  L.  ed.  296. 

21  Hodgson  v.  Millward,  3  Grant,  412. 

22  Ex  parte  McCardle,  7  Wall.  514,  19  L.  ed.  264. 

23  Ableman  v.  Booth,  21  How.  506,  16  L.  ed.  169;  Mayor  v.  Cooper, 
6  Wall.  247,  18  L.  ed.  851. 

24  Van  Home's  Lessee  v.  Dorranee,  2  Dall.  304,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
16,857;  Martin  v.  Hunter,  1  Wheat.  304,  4  L.  ed.  97;  Cohens  v.  Vir- 
ginia, 6  Wheat.  264,  5  L.  ed.  257;  Ableman  v.  Booth,  21  How.  506,  16 
L.  ed.  169. 


Art.  Ill,  §  2,  CI.  1     Extent  of  Judicial  Tower.  5?0 

courts  may  be  given  by  Congress  power  to  construe  every  law 
with  reference  to  its  validity  under  the  constitution.25  In 
order  that  the  judicial  power  may  extend  to  a  case  arising  under 
the  constitution  or  laws  of  the  United  States  or  a  treaty,  it 
must  be  "a  case  in  law  or  in  equity"  in  which  a  right  under 
such  constitution,  law  or  treaty  is  asserted  in  a  court  of  jus- 
tice.20 A  suit  in  which  a  party  seeks  protection  under  a  law 
is  one  arising  under  that  law;27  and  where  the  right  of  either 
party  to  a  suit  depends  upon  the  validity  of  an  act  of  Congress, 
the  case  is  one  arising  under  the  constitution.28  The  construc- 
tion of  a  treaty  is  deemed  to  be  drawn  into  question  for  the 
purposes  of  federal  jurisdiction  where  the  issue  is  as  to  whether 
an  act  done  or  omitted  was  in  conformity  to  the  treaty.29  But 
the  case  must  really  and  substantially  involve  a  question  con- 
templated by  this  clause;30  the  mere  controverting  a  right  or 
disputing  an  act  is  not  necessarily  sufficient.31 

The  jurisdiction  of  the  federal  courts  is  exclusive  over  ques- 
tions arising  under  treaties,  where  such  questions  are  not  politi- 
cal.32    As  between  the  legislative  and  judiciary  departments, 

25  Osborne  v.  United  States  Bank,  9  Wheat.  819,  6  L.  ed.  204; 
Smith  v.  Adams,  130  U.  S.  174,  9  S.  Ct.  564,  32  L.  ed.  895;  Interstate 
Commerce  Com.  v.  Brimson,  154  U.  S.  475,  14  S.  Ct.  1132,  38  L.  ed. 
1047;  Nashville  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Taylor,  86  Fed.  172. 

26  Cohens  v.  Virginia,  6  Wheat.  379,  5  L.  ed.  257;  Minnesota  Co. 
v.  St.  Paul  Co.,  2  Wall.  634,  17  L.  ed.  886;  Railroad  Co.  v.  Mississippi, 
102  U.  S.  140,  26  L.  ed.  96. 

27  Hodgson  v.  Millward,  3  Grant,  412,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6568;  Kulp  v. 
Ricketts,  3  Grant,  420. 

2S  Patton  v.  Brady,  184  IT.  S.  611,  22  S.  Ct.  493,  46  L.  ed.  713. 

29  Smith  v.  Maryland,  6  Cr.  304,  3  L.  ed.  225. 

30  Bier  v.  McGehee,  148  U.  S.  141,  13  S.  Ct.  580,  37  L.  ed.  397; 
Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Ann  Arbor  R.  R.  Co.,  178  U.  S.  250,  20 
S.  Ct.  867,  44  L.  ed.  1052;  Gableman  v.  Peoria  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  179  U.  3. 
339,  21  S.  Ct.  171,  45  L.  ed.  220. 

31  Ferry  v.  King  Co.,  141  U.  S.  673,  12   S.  Ct.  128,  35  L.  ed.  895. 

32  Wilson  v.  Wall,  6  Wall.  89,  18  L.  ed.  727;  United  States  v. 
Reese,  5  Dill.  409,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,137;  Ex  parte  Leon,  1  Edm.  Sel. 
Cas.  301;  United  States  v.  Lathrop,  17  Johns.  9;  United  States  v. 
Campbell,  6  Hall  L.  J,  113;  Haney  v.  Sharp,  1  Dana,  442;  Scharpf 
v.  Schmidt,  172  111.  262,  50  N.  E.  184. 


521  Extent  of  Judicial  Power.     Art.  Ill,  §  2,  CI.  1 

however,  so  far  as  the  provisions  of  a  treat}-  can  become  the  sub- 
ject of  judicial  cognizance,  they  are  subject  to  acts  of  Congress 
jiassed  for  their  enforcement,  modification  or  repeal.33 

"Cases"  Contemplated  by  this  Clause. 

The  jurisdiction  of  the  federal  courts  is  commensurate  with 
every  right  and  duty  created,  declared,  or  necessarily  implied 
by  and  under  the  federal  constitution  and  laws.34  A  "case"  is 
a  question  contested  before  a  court  of  justice,35  and  a  case  in 
law  or  equity  consists  in  the  right  of  one  party  as  well  as  of  the 
other,  and  it  "arises"  when  its  correct  decision  depends  on  the 
construction  of  the  constitution  or  laws  of  the  United  States.36 
It  is  a  suit  instituted  according  to  the  regular  course  of  ju- 
dicial procedure.87  The  interests  of  the  parties  must  be  ad- 
verse;38 the  clause  does  not  contemplate  suits  merely  to  deter- 
mine abstract  principles.39  It  is  limited  to  such  suits  as  are 
between  parties  and  are  of  a  judicial  nature,40  and  does  not 
include  purely  political  questions.41     When   the   subject   of   a 

33  Head  Money  Cases,  112  TJ.  S.  5S0,  5  S.  Ct.  247,  28  L.  ed.  798. 

34  Irvine  v.  Marshall,  20  How.  564,  15  L.  ed.  994. 

35  Martin  v.  Hunter,  1  Wheat.  352,  4  L.  ed.  97;  Cohens  v.  Vir- 
ginia, 6  Wheat.  407,  5  L.  ed.  257;  Ex  parte  Milligan,  4  Wall.  113,  18 
L.  ed.  281;  King  v.  McLean  Asylum,  64  Fed.  336,  26  L.  R,  A.  784; 
Appleton  v.  Turnbull,  84  Me.  76,  24  Atl.  593;  State  v.  Newell,  13 
Mont,  305,  34  Pac.  29. 

36  Cohens  v.  Virginia,  6  Wheat.  407,  5  L.  ed.  257;  Railroad  Co.  v. 
Mississippi,  102  TJ.  S.  140,  26  L.  ed.  96;  Ex  parte  Carll,  106  TJ.  S. 
522,  1  S.  Ct.  535,  27  L.  ed.  288;  United  States  v.  Williams,  4  Cr.  O. 
C.  372,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,712. 

37  Marbury  v.  Madison,  1  Cr.  138,  2  L.  ed.  60;  Owings  v.  Norwood's 
Lessee,  5  Cr.  348,  3  L.  ed.  120;  Martin  v.  Hunter,  1  Wheat.  352,  4 
L.  ed."  97. 

38  Wood-Paper  Co.  v.  Heft,  8  Wall.  336,  19  L.  ed.  379. 

39  Foster  v.  Mansfield  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  146  TJ.  S.  101,  13  S.  Ct.  28, 
36  L.  ed.  899. 

40  Luther  v.  Borden,  7  How.  1,  12  L.  ed.  581;  United  States  v. 
Ferreira,  13  How.  40,  14  L.  ed.  42. 

41  Craig  v.  Missouri,  4  Pet.  438,  7  L.  ed.  903;  Cherokee  Nation  v. 
Georgia,  5  Pet.  20,  8  L.  ed.  25;  United  States  v.  Blaine,  139  U.  S. 
326,  11  S.  Ct.  607,  35  L.  ed.  183;  In  re  Cooper,  143  U.  S.  503,  12  S. 
Ct.  453,  36  L.  ed.  232. 


Art.  Ill,  §  2,  CI.  1     Extent  of  Judicial  Power.  522 

controversy  is  political — e.  g.,  where  it  involves  a  question 
purely  governmental — the  courts  cannot  take  cognizance  of  it.42 
Cases  at  law,  under  the  constitution,  are  those  suits  in  which 
legal  rights  are  ascertained  and  determined,  in  contradistinction 
to  those  where  equitable  rights  alone  are  recognized  and  equi- 
table rights  administered.43  Equity  cases  are  those  suits  in 
which  relief  is  sought  according  to  the  principles  and  practice 
of  the  equity  jurisdiction  as  established  in  English  jurispru- 
dence.44 A  case  can  be  considered  only  when  the  subject 
matter  is  submitted  in  the  form  prescribed  by  law,45  and  the 
record  must  show,  not  only  that  some  law  or  treaty  or  right 
under  the  constitution  is  drawn  into  question,46  but  that  such 
law  or  treaty  or  constitutional  right  is  substantially  involved.47 
The  validity  of  a  statute  is  not  drawn  into  question  every  time 
rights  claimed  under  that  statute  are  controverted,  nor  is  the 
validity  of  an  authority  drawn  into  question  every  time  an  act 
done  under  such  authority  is  disputed,48  and  a  suit  to  enforce 
a  right  or  title  taking  its  origin  from  United  States  laws,  is 
not  necessarily  such  as  federal  courts  may  entertain  regardless 

42  Georgia  v.  Stanton,  6  Wall.  71-76,  18  L.  ed.  721;  In  re  Cooper, 
143  U.  S.  503,  12  S.  Ct.  453,  36  L.  ed.  232. 

43  Parsons  v.  Bedford,  3  Pet.  447,  7  L.  ed.  732;  Fenn  v.  Holme,  21 
How.  486,  16  L.  ed.  198;  Irvine  v.  Marshall,  20  How.  565,  15  L.  ed. 
994.  See,  also,  Strother  v.  Lucas,  6  Pet.  768,  8  L.  ed.  573;  Parish 
v.  Ellis,  16  Pet.  453,  10  L.  ed.  1028;  Bennett  v.  Butterworth,  11  How. 
669,  13  L.  ed.  859;  Sherbourne  v.  De  Cordova,  24  How.  423,  16  L. 
ed.  741. 

44  Irvine  v.  Marshall,  20  How.  565,  15  L.  ed.  994;  National  Surety 
Co.  v.  State  Bank,  120  Fed.  593,  61  L.  E.  A.  394. 

45  Bobinson  v.  Campbell,  3  Wheat.  212,  4  L.  ed.  372;  Osborne  v. 
United  States  Bank,  9  Wheat.  738,  6  L.  ed.  204;  Parsons  v.  Bedford, 
3  Pet.  433,  7  L.  ed.  732. 

46  Lawler  v.  Walker,  14  How.  149,  14  L.  ed.  364;  Mills  v.  Brown, 
16  Pet.  525,  10  L.  ed.  1055;  Railroad  Co.  v.  Rock,  4  Wall.  180,  18  L. 
ed.  381;  Ryan  v.  Thomas,  4  Wall.  603,  18  L.  ed.  460;  La  Abra  etc. 
Mining  Co.  v.  United  States,  175  U.  S.  455,  20  S.  Ct.  168,  44  L.  ed. 
223. 

47  Gableman  v.  Peoria  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  179  U.  S.  339,  21  S.  Ct.  17.1, 
45  L.  ed.  220. 

48  Ferry  v.  King  Co.,  141  U.  S.  673,  12  S.  Ct.    128,  35  L.  ed.  895. 


523  Extent  of  Judicial  Power.     Art.  Ill,  §  2,  CI.  1 

of  citizenship.49     The  pleadings  need  not,  however,  point  out 
what  particular  clause  in  the  constitution  is  in  question.50 

The  courts  of  the  United  States  have  no  jurisdiction  of  of- 
fenses at  common  law.51  Suits  in  winch  relief  is  sought  ac- 
cording to  the  principles  and  practice  of  equity  jurisdiction  are 
"cases  in  equity/'52  and  the  equity  jurisdiction  is  the  same  a& 
that  of  the  high  court  of  chancery  in  England.53  The  true 
test  is  whether  there  is  a  plain,  adequate  and  complete  remedy 
at  law  in  the  same  court.54 

The  judicial  power  extends  to  cases  in  state  courts  and  to 
statutes,  whether  passed  by  state  legislatures  or  by  Congrebs, 
which  are  claimed  to  be  repugnant  to  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States,55  but  not  to  statutes  claimed  to  be  void  under 

49  Shoshone  Mining  Co.  v.  Butter,  177  TJ.  S.  507,  20  S.  Ct.  726,  44 
L.  ed.  864. 

50  Chrystal  Springs  etc.  Water  Co.  v.  City  of  Los  Angeles,  76  Fed. 
148. 

51  Ex  parte  Bollman,  4  Cr.  75,  2  L.  ed.  554;  Turner  v.  Bank  of 
North  America,  4  Dall.  10,  1  L.  ed.  718;  United  States  v.  Wiltberger, 
5  Wheat.  104,  5  L.  ed.  37;  Jones  v.  United  States,  137  U.  S.  211,  11 
S.  Ct.  80  34  L.  ed.  691;  Manchester  v.  Massachusetts,  139  U.  S.  262, 
11  S.  Ct.  559,  35  L.  ed.  159;  United  States  v.  Lancaster,  2  McLean, 
431,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,556;  Kitchen  v.  Strawbridge,  4  Wash.  C.  C. 
84,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7854. 

52  Eobinson  v.  Campbell,  3  Wheat.  212,  4  L.  ed.  372;  United  States 
v.  Howland,  4  Wheat.  108,  4  L.  ed.  526;  Lorman  v.  Clarke,  2  McLeau, 
568,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8516;  Gordon  v.  Hobart,  2  Sum.  401,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
5609;  Peatt  v.  Northam,  5  Mason,  95,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,376;  Cropped 
v.  Coburn,  2  Curt.  465,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3416. 

53  Sheffield  Furnace  Co.  v.  Witherow,  149  U.  S.  574,  13  S.  Ct.  936, 
37  L.  ed.  853;  Mississippi  Mills  v.  Cohn,  150  U.  S.  202,  37  L.  ed. 
1052. 

54  United  States  v.  Howland,  4  Wheat.  108,  4  L.  ed.  526;  Boyce  v. 
Grundy,  3  Pet.  215,  7  L.  ed.  655;  Gaines  v.  Chew,  2  How.  619,  11 
L.  ed.  619;  Williams  v.  Benedict,  8  How.  107,  12  L.  ed.  1007;  National 
Surety  Co.  v.  State  Bank,  120  Fed.  593,  61  L.  R.  A.  394. 

55  Calder  v.  Bull,  3  Dall.  399,  1  L.  ed.  648;  Marbury  v.  Madison,  1 
Cr.  137,  2  L.  ed.  60;  Trustees  Dartmouth  College  v.  Woodward,  4 
Wheat.  625,  4  L.  ed.  629;  Parsons  v.  District  of  Columbia,  170  U.  3. 
45,  18  S.  Ct.  521,  42  L.  ed.  943;  Chrystal  Springs  etc.  Water  Co.  v. 
City  of  Los  Angeles,  76  Fed.  148. 


Art.  Ill,  §  2,  CI.  1     Extent  of  Judicial  Power.  524 

a  state  constitution  only.56  The  judiciary  can  only  inquire 
whether  the  means  cfevised  by  Congress  in  the  exercise  of  a 
power  granted  are  repugnant  to  the  constitution,57  not  whether 
Congress  acted  wisely,58  or  with  a  proper  motive.59  And  to 
warrant  the  judiciary  in  declaring  an  act  of  Congress  void  it 
must  he  clearly  repugnant  to  the  constitution;00  the  objection 
must  not  be  doubtful,61  but  must  show  a  clear  violation  of  the 
constitution.62 

The  judicial  power  extends  to  all  cases  affecting  ambassadors 
and  consuls,  notwithstanding  they  are  not  parties  to  the  rec- 
ord.63 The  jurisdiction  of  circuit  courts  over  a  controversy  be- 
tween a  citizen  and  an  alien  is  not  defeated  because  the  alien 
is  the  consul  of  a  foreign  government,64  and  citizens  of  the 

50  Calder  v.  Bull,  3  Dall.  392,  1  L.  ed.  648;  State  v.  Hufty,  11  La. 
Ann.  316;  Williams  v.  Bank  of  Michigan,  7  Wend.  553. 

57  Interstate  Commerce  Com.  v.  Brimson,  154  U.  S.  447,  14  S.  .Ct. 
1125,  38  L.  ed.  1047. 

58  Marbury  v.  Madison,  1  Cr.  176,  2  L.  ed.  60;  Dred  Scott  v.  San- 
ford,  19  How.  405,  15  L.  ed.  691;  United  States  v.  Union  Pacific  E.  E. 
Co.,  91  U.  S.  91,  23  L.  ed.  224;  Brass  v.  North  Dakota,  153  U.  S.  403, 
14  S.  Ct.  857,  38  L.  ed.  757;  Li  Sing  v.  United  States,  180  U.  S. 
495,  21  S.  Ct.  449,  45  L.  ed.  634;  Treat  v.  White,  181  U.  S.  269,  21 
S.  Ct.  611,  45  L.  ed.  853. 

59  Fletcher  v.  Peck,  6.  Cr.  131,  3  L.  ed.  162;  Ex  parte  MeCardle,  7 
Wall.  514,  19  L.  ed.  264;  Soon  Hing  v.  Crowley,  113  U.  S.  710,  5  S. 
Ct.  730,  28  L.  ed.  1145;  United  States  v.  Des  Moines  etc.  K.  R.  Co., 
142  U.  S.  544,  12  S.  Ct.  308,  35  L.  ed.  1099. 

60  Hylton  v.  United  States,  3  Dall.  175,  1  L.  ed.  556;  Calder  v. 
Bui!,  3  Dall.  395,  1  L.  ed.  648;  Mnnn  v.  Illinois,  94  U.  S.  123,  24  L. 
ed.  77;  Livingston  v.  Darlington,  101  U.  S.  410,  25  L.  ed.  1015;  Hooper 
v.  California,  155  U.  S.  657,  15  S.  Ct.  207,  39  L.  ed.  297. 

61  Trustees  Dartmouth  College  v.  Woodward,  4  Wheat.  625,  4  L. 
ed.  629;  Parsons  v.  Bedford,  3  Pet.  448,  7  L.  ed.  732;  Fairbank  v. 
United  States,  181  U.  S.  285,  21  S.  Ct.  648,  45  L.  ed.  862;  Chesapeake 
etc.  Tel.  Co.  v.  Manning,  186  U.  S.  245,  22  S.  Ct.  881,  46  L.  ed.  1144. 

62  Chesapeake  etc.  Ey.  Co.  v.  Kentucky,  179  U.  S.  394,  21  S.  Ct. 
101,  45  L.  ed.  244;  Fairbank  v.  United  States,  181  U.  S.  285,  21  S. 
Ct.  648,  45  L.  ed.  862. 

63  Osborne  v.  Bank  of  United  States,  9  Wheat.  738,  6  L.  ed.  204; 
United  States  v.  Ortega,  11  Wheat.  467,  6  L.  ed.  521;  United  States 
v.  Eavara,  2  Dall,  297,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,112. 

64  Bors  v.  Preston,  111  U.  S.  261,  4  S.  Ct.  407,  28  L.  ed.  419. 


525  Extent  of  Judicial  Power.     Art.  Ill,  §  2,  CI.  1 

United  States,  although  consuls  of  foreign  nations,  may  be  sued 
in  the  district  court,  where  they  are  not  received  as  diplomatic 
agents,  though  they  may  be  acting  for  the  minister  in  his  ab- 
sence.65 The  constitutional  grant  of  original  jurisdiction  to 
the  supreme  court  of  cases  affecting  ambassadors  and  consuls 
is  not  exclusive,  and  subordinate  federal  courts  may  be  in- 
vested with  jurisdiction  in  such  cases.66 

Jurisdiction  Dependent  upon  Parties. 

The  federal  courts  have  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  all  cases  in 
which  the  United  States  is  a  party,67  and  under  the  act  of  1888 
this  jurisdiction  attaches  when  the  government  is  a  plaintiff 
without  regard  to  the  value  of  the  matter  in  dispute;68  e.  g., 
to  a  suit  brought  by  the  United  States  as  guardian  of  Indians 
who  have  never  become  citizens.69  But  while  the  judicial  power 
extends  to  controversies  to  which  the  government  is  a  party,70 
yet  where  the  United  States  is  merely  a  nominal  party  the  same 
rules  will  apply  in  determining  jurisdiction  as  if  the  suit  were 
between  private  individuals  appearing  as  parties  to  the  record.71 
So,  where  an  act  of  Congress  requires  that  contractors  shall 
give  bonds  for  the  benefit  of  materialmen  and  laborers,  who 
are  authorized  to  sue  thereon  in  the  name  of  the  United  States, 
such  a  suit  is  not  one  brought  by  the  United  States  so  as  to 
give  the  federal  courts  jurisdiction  regardless  of  the  subject 
matter  and  the  citizenship  of  the  real  parties  in  interest.72 
Whether  a  suit  is  one  against  the  United  States  is  to  be  deter- 
mined by  the  result  of    the    decree  that  may  be    rendered.73 

65  in  re  Baiz,  135  U.  S.  425,  10  8.  Ct.  854,  34  L.  ed.  222. 

66  Bors  v.  Preston,  111  U.  S.  256,  4  S.  Ct.  407,  28  L.  ed.  419. 

67  The  Moses  Taylor,  4  Wall.  430,  18  L.  ed.  397. 

68  United  States  v.  Sayward,  160  U.  S.  498,  16  S.  Ct.  371,  40  L. 
ed.  508;  United  States  v.  Winans,  73  Fed.  75;  United  States  v.  Eeid, 
90  Fed.  5Z2. 

69  United  States  v.  Boyd,  68  Fed.  577. 

70  Mississippi  v.  Johnson,  4  Wall.  501,  18  L.  ed.  437. 

71  United  States  v.  Beebe,  127  U.  S.  347,  8  S.  Ct.  1083,  32  L.  ed. 
121;  Curtner  v.  United  States,  149  U.  S.  673,  13  S.  Ct.  985,  37  L. 
ed.  890. 

72  United  States  v.  Sheridan,  119  Fed.  236. 

73  Minnesota  v.  Hitchcock,  185  U.  S.  386,  22  S.  Ct.  650,  46  L. 
ed.  854 


Art.  Ill,  §  2,  01. 1     Extent  of  Judicial  Power.  526 

An  action  of  trespass  to  try  title  against  officers  of  the  United 
States  in  possession  of  land  is  an  action  against  the  United 
States  and  its  land  and  not  merely  against  its  officers,74  as 
also  is  a  suit  by  a  state  against  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  to 
enjoin  the  sale  of  lands  claimed  by  the  state  and  which  the 
United  States  agreed  to  protect  for  Indians.75  But  a  bill  by 
a  state  against  the  President  to  enjoin  the  execution  of  the  re- 
construction laws  is  not  a  suit  against  the  United  States.76 

This  clause  extends  the  judicial  power  to  suits  wherein  a 
state  is  a  party.77  By  the  constitution  as  originally  adopted  a 
state  was  suable  in  the  supreme  court  by  an  individual  citizen 
of  another  state,78  and  it  was  this  ruling  that  led  to  the  adop- 
tion of  the  Eleventh  Amendment  prohibiting  suits  in  the  fed- 
eral courts  against  a  state  by  the  citizens  of  another  state  or 
by  aliens.79  Jurisdiction  of  the  federal  courts  attaches  only 
when  a  state  is  a  party  to  the  record,80  and  the  governor  or 
chief  executive  and  the  attorney  general  are  served  with  pro- 

74  Stanley  v.  Schwalby,  162  U.  S.  272,  16  S.  Ct.  754,  40  L.  e.l. 
960. 

75  Minnesota  v.  Hitchcock,  185  U.  S.  384,  22  S.  Ct.  650,  46  L. 
ed.  854. 

76  Mississippi  v.  Johnson,  4  Wall.  498,  18  L.  ed.  437;  Georgia  v. 
Stanton,  6  Wall.  50,  18  L.  ed.  721. 

77  New  York  v.  Connecticut,  4  Dall.  1,  1  L.  ed.  715;  Governor  v. 
Madrazo,  1  Pet.  122,  7  L.  ed.  73;  New  Jersey  v.  New  York,  5  Pet. 
290,  8  L.  ed.  127;  Georgia  v.  Brailsford,  2  Dall.  402,  1  L.  ed.  433; 
Chisholm  v.  Georgia,  2  Dall.  450,  1  L.  ed.  440;  Grayson  v.  Virginia, 
3  Dall.  320,  1  L.  ed.  619;  Ehode  Island  v.  Massachusetts,  12  Pet.  760, 
9  L.  ed.  1233;  Wisconsin  v.  Pelican  Ins.  Co.,  127  U.  S.  288,  8  S.  Ct. 
1373,  32  L.  ed.  239. 

78  Chisholm  v.  Georgia,  2  Dall.  450-4S0,  1  L.  ed.  440. 

79  Governor  v.  Madrazo,  1  Pet.  122,  7  L.  ed.  73;  Briscoe  v.  Bank 
of  Kentucky,  11  Pet.  321,  9  L.  ed.  709;  United  States  v.  Lee,  106  U. 
S.  207,  1  S.  Ct.  249,  27  L.  ed.  171;  New  Hampshire  v.  Louisiana,  108 
U.  S.  86,  2  S.  Ct.  180,  27  L.  ed.  656;  Buckner  v.  Street,  1  Dill.  259, 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  2008;  Thebo  v.  Choctaw  Tribe,  66  Fed.  375;  Smith  v. 
Eacliffe,  87  Fed.  968. 

80  Osborne  v.  United  States  Bank,  9  Wheat.  738,  6  L.  ed.  204; 
New  York  v.  Connecticut,  4  Dall.  3,  1  L.  ed.  715;  Fowler  v.  Lindsay, 
3  Dall.  411,  1  L.  ed.  658;  United  States  v.  Peters,  5  Cr.  115,  3  L. 
ed.  53. 


527  Extent  of  Judicial  Power.     Art.  Ill,  §  2,  (31.  1 

cess;81  or  when  an  officer  is  sued  in  his  official  capacity.82 
But  a  suit  against  an  officer  is  not  a  suit  against  the  state  unless 
it  is  against  him  solely  in  his  representative  capacity.83  A 
suit  against  the  attorney  general  and  assistant  attorney  general 
of  a  state  to  enjoin  a  prosecution  in  the  name  of  a  state  under 
a  state  law  is  a  suit  against  the  state.84 

The  power  extends  to  controversies  between  two  or  more 
states,85  including  suits  to  settle  disputed  boundaries;86  but  a 
suit  by  a  state  on  claims  assigned  to  it,  against  another  state, 
is  not  a  suit  between  states  within  the  meaning  of  this  clause.87 
The  "controversies"  contemplated  by  this  clause  are  suits  of  a 
civil  nature  only.88  The  grant  of  judicial  power  was  not  in- 
tended to  confer  jurisdiction  of  a  suit  by  one  state,  of  such  a 
nature  that  it  could  not,  on  settled  principles  of  public  and 
international  law,  be  entertained  by  the  judiciary  of  the  other 
state  at  all.89     This  provision  applies  only  to  states  that  are 

81  Georgia  v.  Brailsford,  2  Dall.  402,  1  L.  etf.  433;  Oswald  v.  New- 
York,  2  Dall.  415,  1  L.  ed.  438;  Grayson  v.  Virginia,  3  Dall.  320,  1  L. 
ed.  619;  New  Jersey  v.  New  York,  3  Pet.  464,  7  L.  ed.  741;  New 
Jersey  v.  New  York,  5  Pet.  289,  8  L.  ed.  127;  Poydras  De  La  Land 
v.  Treasurer  of  Louisiana,  17  How.  2,  15  L.  ed.  93;  Kentucky  v.  Den- 
nison,  24  How.  97. 

82  Kentucky  v.  Ohio,  24  How.  97,  16  L.  ed.  717;  Governor  of  Georgia 
v.  Madrazo,  1  Pet.  110,  7  L.  ed.  73;  In  re  Ayers,  123  U.  S.  506,  8 
S.  Ct.  164,  31  L.  ed.  216;  Pennoyer  v.  McConnaughy,  140  U.  S.  9, 
11  S.  Ct.  699,  35  L.  ed.  363. 

83  Kolston  v.  Missouri  Fund  Commissioners,  120  U.  S.  411,  7  S.  Ct. 
599,  30  L.  ed.  721;  Illinois  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Adams,  180  U.  S.  37,  21 
S.  Ct.  251,  45  L.  ed.  410. 

84  Union  Trust  Co.  v.  Stearns,  119  Fed.  740. 

8!>  Osborne  v.  United  States  Bank,  9  Wheat.  738,  6  L.  ed.  204;  Dun- 
das  v.  Bowler,  3  McLean,  204,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4140. 

86  Ehode  Island  v.  Massachusetts,  12  Pet.  657,  9  L.  ed.  1233;  Ala- 
bama v.  Georgia,  23  How.  510,  16  L.  ed.  556;  Brainerd  v.  Williams, 
1  McLean,  122,  Fsd.  Cas.  No.  1804. 

87  New  Hampshire  v,  Louisiana,  108  U.  S.  91,  2  S.  Ct.  176,  27  L. 
ed.  656. 

88  Chisholm  v.  Georgia,  2  Dall.  431,  1  L.  ed.  440;  In  re  Pacific 
Eailway  Commission,  12  Saw.  559,  32  Fed.  255. 

89  Wisconsin  v.  Pelican  Ins.  Co.,  127  U.  S.  289,  8  S.  Ct.  370,  32  L. 
ed.  239. 


Art.  Ill,  §  2,  CI.  1     Extent  of  Judicial  Power.  528 

members  of  the  Union,  and  to  public  bodies  owing  obedience 
and  conformity  to  its  constitution  and  laws.90  To  constitute 
a  state  a  political  organization  it  must  be  a  state  in  the  contem- 
plation of  the  constitution,  and  that  term  does  not  embrace 
Indian  nations.91  So  a  territory  cannot  be  deemed  a  state 
within  the  meaning  of  the  constitution.92  The  power  extends 
to  controversies  between  a  state  and  citizens  of  other  states, 
but  this  does  not  include  a  suit  by  the  citizens  against  the 
state,93  Nor  does  it  include  a  suit  in  which  some  of  the  de- 
fendants are  citizens  of  the  complainant  state.94 

This  clause  gives  to  the  federal  courts  jurisdiction  over  con- 
troversies between  citizens  of  different  states.95  The  object  of 
the  grant  of  power  in  this  respect  was  to  secure  for  the  trial 
of  controversies  between  citizens  of  different  states  a  more  im- 
partial tribunal  than  the  courts  of  the  state  where  one  litigant 
resided  would  be.96  It  is  the  situation  of  the  parties,  and  not 
their  character,  that  determines  the  jurisdiction  of  the  federal 
courts.97  The  test  of  jurisdiction  is  diversity  of  citizenship,98 
and  it  is  indispensable  that  all  the  parties  have  jurisdictional 
capacity;  each  plaintiff  must  be  capable  of  suing  each  defend- 
ant in  the  federal  court;99  accordingly  if  a  necessary  party  de- 

90  Scott  v.  Jones,  5  How.  378,  12  L.  181. 

91  Cherokee  Nation  v.  Georgia,  5  Pet.  18,  8  L.  ed.  25;  McElvaiu 
v.  Mudd,  44  Ala.  65;  Shorter  v.  Cobb,  39  Ga.  299. 

92  Smith  v.  United  States,  1  Wash.  Ter.  269. 

93  Cohen  v.  Virginia,  6  Wheat.  406,  5  L.  ed.  257.  See  Eleventh 
Amendment. 

94  Minnesota  v.  Northern  Securities  Co.,  184  U.  S.  199,  22  S.  Ct. 
308,  46  L.  ed.  499. 

95  Brown  v.  Keene,  8  Pet.  115,  8  L.  ed.  885;  McMicken  v.  Webb, 

11  Pet.  38,  9  L.  ed.  618;  Ohio  v.  Wheeler,  1  Black,  297,  17  L.  ed.  130; 
Board  of  Commissioners  v.  Aspinwall,  24  How.  384,  16  L.  ed.  735. 

96  Barrow  Steamship  Co.  v.  Kane,  170  U.  S.  Ill,  18  S.  Ct.  526,  42 
L.  ed.  964. 

97  Connolly  v.  Taylor,  2  Pet.  556,  7  L.  ed.  518. 

98  Wickliffe  v.  Eve,  17  How.  470,  15  L.  ed.  163;  Mail  Co.  v.  Flanders, 

12  Wall.  135,  20  L.  ed.  249;  Anderson  v.  Watt,  138  U.  S.  706,  11  S. 
Ct.  449,  34  L.  ed.  1078. 

99  Strawbridge  v.  Curtiss,  3  Cr.  267,  2  L.  ed.  435;  New  Orleans 
v.  Winter,  1  Wheat.  95,  4  L.  ed.  44;  Coal  Co.  v.  Blatchford,  11  Wall. 


529  Extent  of  Judicial  Power.     Art.  Ill,  §  2,  CI.  1 

fendant  is  a  citizen  of  the  same  state  with  the  plaintiff,  the 
federal  courts  have  no  jurisdiction.100  The  mere  allegation  of 
diverse  citizenship  by  plaintiffs  electing  to  assert  a  joint  claim 
cannot  create  jurisdiction.101  For  the  purposes  of  jurisdiction 
a  party  is  not  necessarily  a  citizen  of  the  state  of  which  he  is 
a  resident.102  An  averment  that  one  is  a  "resident"  of  a  state 
is  not  sufficient ;  it  must  affirmatively  appear  that  he  is  a  "citi- 
zen."103 So,  also,  as  to  an  averment  that  a  party  is  "of"  a 
particular  state.104  3STor  is  it  sufficient  to  allege  that  the  de- 
fendant is  a  citizen  of  a  particular  state  and  that  none  of  the 
plaintiffs  are  citizens  of  that  state ;  it  must  be  alleged  that  they 
are  citizens  of  another  named  state  or  aliens.105  But  a  party 
is  sufficiently  described  as  a  citizen  where  he  alleges  that  his 
rights  as  such  have,  been  infringed  and  avers  that  he  is  a  "res-' 
ident,"  and  the  sufficiency  of  the  allegation  is  not  questioned' 
below.106 

174,  20  L.  ed.  179;  Case  of  Sewing-Machine  Companies,  18  Wall.  573, 
21  L.  ed.  914. 

100  Smith  v.  Lyon,  133  U.  S.  316,  10  S.  Ct.  303,  33  L.  ed.  635; 
Massachusetts  etc.  Co.  v.  Cane  Creek,  155  U.  S.  285,  15  S.  Ct.  91, 
39  L.  ed.  152;  Hooe  v.  Jamieson,  166  U.  S.  397,  17  S.  Ct.  596,  41  L. 
ed.  1049. 

101  Florida  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Bell,  176  U.  S.  334,  20  S.  Ct.  399,  44 
L.  ed.  486;  Wheeless  v.  St.  Louis,  180  U.  S.  382,  21  S.  Ct.  402,  45  L. 
ed.  583. 

102  Brown  v.  Keene,  8  Pet.  115,  8  L.  ed.  885;  Shelton  v.  Tiffin,  6 
How.  184,  12  L.  ed.  387;  Edwards  v.  Tanneret,  12  Wall.  450,  20  L. 
ed.  415;  Timmons  v.  Elyton  Land  Co.,  139  U.  S.  379,  11  S.  Ct.  585, 
35  L.  ed.  195;  Southern  Pacific  Co.  v.  Denton,  146  U.  S.  205,  13  S. 
Ct.  44,  36  L.  ed.  942;  .Cooper  v.  Newell,  155  U.  S.  533,  15  S.  Ct.  355, 
39  L.  ed.  249. 

103  Wood  v.  Wagnon,  2  Cr.  9,  2  L.  ed.  191;  Eobertson  v.  Cease, 
97  IT.  S.  648,  24  L.  ed.  1057;  Menard  v.  Goggan,  121  U.  S.  253,  7  S. 
Ct.  873,  30  L.  ed.  (914;  Denny  v.  Pironi,  141  U.  S.  123,  11  S.  Ct.  966, 
35  L.  ed.  657;  Wolfe  v.  Hartford  Life  etc.  Ins.  Co.,  148  U.  S.  38s), 
13  S.  Ct.  602,  37  L.  ed.  493. 

104  Wood  v.  Wagnon,  2  Cr.  9,  2  L.  ed.  191;  Jackson  v.  Ashton,  8 
P«t.  149,  8  L.  ed.  898. 

105  Cameron  v.  Hodges,  127  U.  S.  324,  8  S.  Ct.  1154,  32  L.  ed.  132. 

106  Sully  v.  American  National  Bank,  178  U.  S.  298,  20  S.  Ct.  935, 
44  L.  ed.  1072. 

Notes   on   Constitution — 34 


Art.  Ill,  §  2,  CI.  1     Extent  of  Judicial  Power.  530 

A  corporation  is  a  citizen  for  the  purpose  of  suit  in  the  fed- 
eral courts;107  but  it  must  be  organized  as  such.108  A  limited 
partnership  is  not  within  the  rule  notwithstanding  its  capacity 
to  sue  and  be  sued  in  its  association  name.109  Under  this  clause 
a  corporation  will  be  deemed  to  be  a  citizen  of  the  state  where 
it  was  created,110  regardless  of  the  actual  citizenship  of  its 
members,111  which  for  purposes  of  jurisdiction  over  the  cor- 
poration is  conclusively  presumed  to  be  in  the  state  of  incor- 
poration.112 The  adoption  of  a  foreign  corporation  by  a  state 
does  not  make  the  corporation  a  citizen  of  that  state  within 
this  clause,  but  it  remains  a  citizen  of  the  state  of  its  crea- 
tion.113 A  corporation  organized  in  two  different  states  can- 
not be  joined  in  a  suit  as  one  and  the  same  plaintiff,  nor  sue 
in  the  federal  court  a  citizen  of  either  of  the  states  in  which 
it  was  organized,114  and  a  corporation  chartered  by  two  or  more 
states  is  not,  if  sued  in  one  of  those  states,  a  citizen  of  any 
other  state;115  but  a  railway  company  merely  operating  in  sev- 

107  Case  of  Sewing-Machine  Companies,  18  Wall.  575,  21  L.  ed. 
914;  Chapman  v.  Barney,  129  U.  S.  682,  9  S.  Ct.  426,  32  L.  ed.  800. 

108  Chapman  v.  Barney,  129  U.  S.  682,  9  S.  Ct.  426,  32  L.  ed.  800. 

109  Great  Southern  etc.  Hotel  Co.  v.  Jones,  177  U.  S.  455,  20  S.  Ct. 
690,  44  L.  ed.  842. 

no  Hope  Ins.  Co.  v.  Boardman,  5  Cr.  57,  3  L.  ed.  36;  Marshall  ▼. 
Baltimore  etc  B.  E.  Co.,  16  How.  314,  14  L.  ed.  953;  Kailroad  Co.  ▼. 
Koontz,  104  U.  S.  12,  26  L.  ed.  643;  Nashua  etc.  B.  B.  Co.  v.  Lowell 
etc.  E.  K.  Co.,  136  IT.  S.  370,  10  S.  Ct.  1004,  34  L.  ed.  363;  St.  Louis 
etc.  By.  Co.  v.  James,  161  U.  S.  555,  16  S.  Ct.  621,  40  L.  ed.  802;  West- 
heider  v.  Wabash  E.  E.  Co.,  115  Fed.  840. 

in  Louisville  etc.  E.  B.  Co.  v.  Letson,  2  How.  555,  11  L.  ed.  353. 

H2  Muller  v.  Dows,  94  TJ.  S.  445,  24  L.  ed.  207;  Shaw  v.  Quincy 
Mining  Co.,  145  TJ,  S.  451,  12  S.  Ct.  935,  36  L.  ed.  768;  Barrow  Steam- 
ship Co.  v.  Kane,  170  U.  S.  106,  18  S.  Ct.  526,  42  L.  ed.  964. 

113  Bailway  Co.  v.  Whitton,  13  Wall.  285,  20  L.  ed.  571;  Fenn- 
sylvania  Co.  v.  St.  Louis  etc.  E.  B.  Co.,  118  U.  S.  297,  6  S.  Ct.  1094, 
30  L.  ed.  83;  St.  Louis  etc.  By.  Co.  v.  James,  161  TJ.  S.  566,  16  S.  Ct. 
621,  40  L.  ed.  802;  Southern  By.  Co.  v.  Allison,  190  TJ.  S.  326,  23  3. 
Ct.  713,  47  L.  ed.  1079. 

114  Ohio  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Wheeler,  1  Black,  297,  17  L.  ed.  130. 
U5  Bailway  Co.  v.  Whitton,  13  Wall.  283,  20  L.  ed.  571. 


531  Extent  of  Judicial  Power.     Art.  Ill,  §  2,  CI.  1 

eral  states  under  authority  granted  by  each  cannot  be  deemed 
a  citizen  of  each.116 

Representatives  and  persons  occupying  fiduciary  capacities 
generally  stand  on  their  own  citizenship  in  determining  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  federal  courts.117  So  the  citizenship  of  a 
beneficiary  in  a  trust  deed  is  immaterial  in  a  suit  by  the  trustee 
to  foreclose.118  A  guardian,  and  not  his  ward,  is  the  party 
plaintiff  so  far  as  jurisdiction  is  concerned,  where  he  has  au- 
thority to  sue  in  his  own  name,119  and  the  citizenship  of  an 
administrator  is  material  in  an  action  for  killing  his  intes- 
tate.120 

The  courts  will  always  have  regard  to  the  real,  rather  than 
to  the  nominal,  party  to  a  suit,  in  order  to  determine  their  jur- 
isdiction.121 So  the  federal  courts  have  no  jurisdiction  of  a 
suit  on  a  right  of  action  fictitiously  assigned,122  and  a  corpora- 
tion collusively  organized  by  the  members  of  a  corporation  of 
another  state  for  the  purpose  of  suing  in  a  federal  court  can- 
not bring  such  suit.123  Where,  however,  a  transfer  of  interest 
is  real  and  for  a  consideration,  the  mere  fact  that  it  was  made 
to  give  jurisdiction  is  immaterial.124     The  jurisdiction  of  the 

116  St.  Joseph  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Steele,  167  U.  S.  663,  17  S.  Ct. 
925,  42  L.  ed.  315. 

117  New  Orleans  v.  Gaines,  138  U.  S.  606,  11  S.  Ct.  428,  34  L. 
ed.  1102;  Chappedelaine  v.  Dechenaux,  4  Cr.  308,  2  L.  ed.  629; 
Childress  v.  Emory,  8  Wheat.  660,  5  L.  ed.  705;  Eiee  v.  Houston,  13 
Wall.  67,  20  L.  ed.  484;  Continental  Ins.  Co.  v.  Ehoads,  119  U.  S. 
240,  7  S.  Ct.  193,  30  L.  ed.  380. 

118  Dodge  v.  Tulleys,  144  U.  S.  455,  12  S.  Ct.  728,  36  L.  ed.  501; 
Plant  Investment  Co.  v.  Jacksonville  etc.  Ey.  Co.,  152  U.  S.  77,  14 
S.  Ct.  483,  38  L.  ed.  358. 

H9  Mexican  Central  Ey.  Co.  v.  Eckman,  187  TJ.  S.  429,  23  S.  Ct. 
211,  47  L.  ed.   245. 

120  Bishop  v.  Boston   etc.  E.  E.   Co.,  117  Fed.   771. 

121  Blocklock  v.  Small,  127  U.  S.  104,  8  S.  Ct.  1096,  32  L.  ed.  70; 
Stewart  v.  Baltimore  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  168  U.  S.  449,  18  S.  Ct.  105,  42 
L.  ed.  537. 

122  Barney  v.  Baltimore  City,  6  Wall.  288,  18  L.  ed.  825;  Crawford 
v.  Neal,  144  U.  S.  593,  12  S.  Ct.  759,  36  L.  ed.  552. 

123  Lehigh  Min.  etc.  Co.  v.  Kelly,  64  Fed.  401. 

124  Crawford  v.  Neal,  144  TJ.  S.  593,  12  S.  Ct.  759,  36  L.  ed.  552; 
Lehigh  Min.  Co.  v.  Kelly,  160  U.  S.  336.,  16  S.  Ct.  307,  40  L.  ed.  444; 


Art.  Ill,  §  2,  CI.  1     Extent  of  Judicial  Power.  532 

federal  courts  over  assigned  causes  of  action  will  be  denied  un- 
less the  record  affirmatively  shows  the  assignor's  capacity  to 
sue.125 

This  clause  does  not  embrace  cases  where  one  of  the  parties 
is  a  citizen  of  a  territory  or  of  the  District  of  Columbia.126 

Controversies  between  citizens  claiming  lands  under  grants 
from  different  states  are  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  federal 
courts,  notwithstanding  one  of  the  states  at  the  time  of  the 
first  grant  was  a  part  of  the  other;127  it  is  the  grant  which 
passes  the  legal  title  and  fixes  the  jurisdiction.128 

This  clause  gives  the  federal  courts  jurisdiction  where  foreign 
states  or  individual  foreigners  are  parties;129  but  it  does  not 
authorize  cognizance  of  suits  between  aliens,130  and  a  citizen 
must  be  the  adverse  party.131  The  jurisdiction  extends  to  a 
suit  between  citizens  of  the  same  state  where  the  plaintiff  is 
merely  nominal  and  suing  for  an  alien.132  One  who  is  an  alien 
at  the  time  a  suit  is  commenced  may  sue  in  the  federal  courts.133 
The  diversity  of  citizenship  must,  as  in  other  cases,  appear 

Dickerman  v.  Northern  Trust  Co.,  176  TJ.  S.  192,  20  S.  Ct.  311,  41 
L.  ed.  423. 

125  Metcalf  v.  Watertown,  128  TJ.  S.  587,  9  S.  Ct.  173,  32  L.  ed. 
543;  Parker  v.  Ormsby,  141  TJ.  S.  86,  11  S.  Ct.  912,  35  L.  ed.  654; 
Benjamin  v.  New  Orleans,  169  U.  S.  164,  18  S.  Ct.  298,  42  L.  ed.  700. 

126  Hepburn  \.  Ellzey,  2  Cr.  453,  2  L.  ed.  332;  New  Orleans  v. 
Winter,  1  Wheat.  94,  4  L.  ed.  44;  Barney  v.  Baltimore  City,  6  Wall. 
287,  18  L.  ed.  825;  Cameron  v.  Hodges,  127  U.  S.  325,  8  S.  Ct.  1154, 
32  L.  ed.  132;  Hooe  v.  Jamieson,  166  U.  S.  397,  17  S.  Ct.  596,  41  L. 
ed.  1049. 

127  Town  of  Pawlet  v.  Clark,  9  Cr.  292,  3  L.  ed.  735. 

128  Colson  v.  Lewis,  2  Wheat.  377,  4  L.  ed.  266. 

129  Chappedelaine  v.  Dechenaux,  4  Cr.  308,  2  L.  ed.  629;  Brown  v. 
Strode,  5  Cr.  303,  3  L.  ed.  108;  Cook  v.  Lillo,  103  U.  S.  793,  26  L. 
ed.  460. 

130  Mossman  v.  Higginson,  4  Dall.  14,  1  L.  ed.  720;  Montalet  v. 
Murray,  4  Cr.  47,  2  L.   ed.   545. 

131  Jackson  v.  Twentyman,  2  Pet.  136,  7  L.  ed.  374;  Gassiea  v. 
Ballou,  6  Pet.  761,  8  L.  ed.  573;  Brown  v.  Keen,  8  Pet.  112,  8  L.  ed. 
885;  Picquet  v.  Swan,  4  Mason,  443,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,133;  Case  v. 
Clark,  5  Mason,  70,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2490. 

132  Brown  v.  Strode,  5  Cr.  303,  3  L.  ed.  108. 

133  Cook  v.  Lillo,  103  U.  S.  793,  26  L.  ed.  460. 


533  Admiralty  Jurisdiction.     Art.  Ill,  §  2,  CI.  1 

from  the  record,134  and  although  one  party  be  described  as  an 
alien,  the  other  must  be  expressly  stated  to  be  a  citizen  of  a 
particular  state,135  An  averment  that  a  plaintiff  is  "a  citizen 
of  London,  England,"  is  insufficient.136  At  common  law  an 
alien  cannot  maintain  a  real  action,137  but  the  disability  is 
purely  personal.138  A  court  may  have  jurisdiction  as  to  par- 
ties and  subject  matter,  yet  if  it  makes  a  decree  which  is  not 
within  the  powers  granted  to  it,  such  decree  is  void,139  and  a 
circuit  court  may  entertain  a  suit  between  two  aliens  to  im- 
peach a  decree  in  a  former  suit  in  the  same  circuit.140  The 
Chinese  Exclusion  Acts  do  not  deprive  a  Chinaman  of  the 
right  to  have  the  federal  courts  determine  his  right  to  land.141 
An  Indian  tribe  is  not  a  foreign  nation  within  this  clause.142 
A  foreign  corporation  is  an  alien  for  the  purposes  of  suit  in 
the  federal  courts.143 

Admiralty  and  Maritime  Jurisdiction. 

Jurisdiction  is  conferred  on  the  federal  courts  in  admiralty 
because,  as  the  seas  are  the  joint  property  of  the  nations,  the 
jurisdiction  is  essentially  national,144  and  an  additional  reason 

134  Jackson  v.  Twentyman,  2  Pet.  136,  7  L.  ed.  374;  Baird  v 
Byrne,  3  Wall.  Jr.  1,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  757;  Bors  v.  Preston,  111  U.  S. 
263,  4  S.  Ct.  407,  28  L.  ed.  419. 

135  Hodgson  v.  Bowerbank,  5   Cr.  304,  3  L.  ed.  308. 

136  Stuart  v.  Easton,  156  U.  S.  47,  15  S.  Ct.  268,  39  L.  ed.  341. 

137  Jones  v.  McMasters,  20  How.  20,  15  L.  ed.  805;  Lanfear  v. 
Henley,  4  Wall.  209,  18  L.  ed.  325;  McDonough  v.  Millandon,  3  How. 
693,  11  L.  ed.  787;  Semple  v.  Hager,  4  Wall.  433,  18  L.  ed.  402. 

138  Kemp  v.  Kennedy,  5  Cr.  173,  3  L.  ed.  70,  Pet.  C.  C.  40. 

139  United  States  v.  Walker,  109  U.  S.  258,  3  S.  Ct.  277,  27  L. 
ed.  927. 

140  Lacassagne  v.  Chapins,  144  U.  S.  126,  12  S.  Ct.  659,  36  L.  ed. 
368. 

141  United  States  v.  Jung  Ah  Lung,  124  U.  S.  627,  8  S.  Ct.  663, 
31  L.  ed.  591. 

14  2  Cherokee  Nation  v.  Georgia,  5  Pet.  1,  8  L.  ed.  25;  Worcester 
v.  Georgia,  6  Pet.  515,  8  L.  ed.  483. 

143  Society  for  Propagation  of  Gospel  v.  New  Haven,  8  Wheat. 
464,  5  L.  ed.  662;  Commercial  etc.  Bank  v.  Sloeomb,  14  Pet.  60,  10 
L.  ed.  354. 

144  Chisholm  v.  Georgia,  2  Dall.  475,  1  L.  ed.  440. 


Art.  Ill,  §  2,  CI.  1     Admiralty  Jurisdiction.  534 

is  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that  because  of  thoir  nature  such 
cases  are  closely  connected  with  the  grant  of  the  commerce 
power.145  The  jurisdiction  is  not  restricted  to  admiralty,  but 
includes  all  "maritime"  jurisdiction.146  The  constitutional 
provision  for  federal  jurisdiction  referred  to  a  system  of  law 
operating  uniformly  in  the  whole  country,147  and  regard  must 
be  had  to  our  legal  history,  constitution,  legislation,  customs 
and  adjudications.148  The  admiralty  jurisdiction  was  not  in- 
tended to  be  as  limited  as  it  was  in  England,  at  the  time  of 
the  adoption  of  the  constitution,149  and  it  was  to  guard  against 
a  narrow  construction  of  the  word  "admiralty"  that  "maritime" 
was  added.150 

The  maritime  law  is  a  part  of  the  common  law,151  but  the 
term  belongs  to  the  law  of  nations,  as  well  as  to  domestic  and 
municipal  law,152  and  partaking,  as  it  does,  of  an  international 
character,  the  courts  will  frequently  resort  to  continental  col- 

145  New  Jersey  Steam  Nav.  Co.  v.  Merchants'  Bank,  6  How.  392, 
12  L.  ed.  465. 

146  De  Lovio  v.  Boit,  2  Gall.  398,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3776;  The  Seneca, 
Gilp.  28,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3650;  The  Huntress,  2  Ware  (Dav.),  82,  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  6914;  Kynoche  v.  The  S.  C.  Ives,  Newb.  205,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
7958. 

147  The  Lottawanna,  21  Wall.  575,  22  L.  ed.  654;  New  Jersey  Steam 
Nav.  Co.  v.  Merchants'  Bank,  6i  How.  344,  12  L.  ed.  465;  Waring  v. 
Clarke,  5  How.  441,  12  L.  ed.  226;  The  Genessee  Chief  v.  Fitzhugh, 
12  How.  443,  13  L.  ed.  1058. 

148  The  St.  Lawrence,  1  Black,  522,  17  L.  ed.  180;  The  Lottawanna, 
21  Wall.  576,  22  L.  ed.  654. 

149  Waring  v.  Clarke,  5  How.  441,  12  L.  ed.  226;  De  Lovio  v.  Boit, 
2  Gall.  398,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3776;  The  Genessee  Chief  v.  Fitzhugh,  12 
How.  458,  13  L.  ed.  1058;  The  Glide,  167  U.  S.  614,  17  S.  Ct.  933,  42 
L.  ed.  296;  Ex  parte  Easton,  95  TJ.  S.  72,  24  L.  ed.  373;  The  Louis- 
ville Underwriters,  134  U.  S.  493,  10  S.  Ct.  589,  33  L.  ed.  991;  The 
Congress,  1  Biss.  44,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3099;  Gloucester  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Younger,  2  Curt.  333,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5487. 

150  Fretz  v.  Bull,  12  How.  466,  13  L.  ed.  1068;  The  Hine  v.  Trevor, 
4  Wall.  555,  18  L.  ed.  451;  The  Moses  Taylor,  4  Wall.  411,  18  L.  ed. 
397. 

151  Thompson  v.  The  Catharina,  1  Pet.  Adm.  104,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
13,949. 

152  The  Huntress,  2  Ware  (Dav.),  82,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6914. 


535  Admiralty  Jurisdiction.     Art.  Ill,  §  2,  CI.  1 

lections  and  treatises  as  sources  of  the  rules.133  The  courts  of 
admiralty  are  not  bound  by  the  strict  rules  of  the  common  law, 
but  act  upon  enlarged  principles  of  equity.154 

The  jurisdiction,  while  granted  partly  because  of  its  close 
alliance  to  the  commerce  power,  is  nevertheless  independent  of 
that  power.155  This  clause  makes  the  judicial  power  in  ad- 
miralty and  maritime  cases  coextensive  with  the  power  of  Con- 
gress over  the  same  subject.156  The  whole  subject  belongs  ex- 
clusively to  the  federal  government,1569  and  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  federal  courts  is  exclusive,157  not  only  as  to  the  cognizance 
of  the  case,  but  the  jurisprudence  and  principles  by  which  it 
is  administered.158 

Jurisdiction  in  admiralty  and  maritime  is  expressly  granted 
by  the  constitution,159  but  its  exercise,  as  in  all  other  cases  of 
grants  of  judicial  power  to  inferior  federal  courts,  depends 
upon  congressional  legislation,160  and  Congress  may  limit  or 

153  The  Maggie  Hammond,  9  "Wall.  452,  19  L.  ed.  772;  Butler  v. 
Boston   Steamship   Co.,   130  U.  S.   556,  9  S.  Ct.  612,  32  L.   ed.   1017, 

154  The  Virgin  v.  Vyfhius,  8  Pet.  550,  8  L.  ed.  1036;  Oakes  v. 
United  States,  174  U.  S.  790,  19  S.  Ct.  864,  43  L.  ed.  1169;  O'Brien 
v.  Miller,  168  U.  S.  287,  IS  S.  Ct.  140,  42  L.  ed.  469. 

155  The  Genessee  Chief  v.  Fitzhugh,  12  How.  443,  13  L.  ed.  1058; 
The  Belfast,  7  Wall.  624,  19  L.  ed.  266;  The  Sarah  Jane,  1  Low,  203, 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,349. 

156  The  Huntress,  2  Ware   (Dav.),  82,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6914. 

156a  United  States  v.  Bevans,  3  Wheat.  389,  4  L.  ed.  404;  In  r9 
Garnett,  141  U.  S.  1-18,  11  S.  Ct.  840,  35  L.  ed.  631. 

157  Martin  v.  Hunter,  1  Wheat.  304,  4  L.  ed.  97;  American  Ins.  Co. 
v.  Cotton,  1  Pet.  511,  7  L.  ed.  242;  The  Moses  Taylor,  4  Wall.  411, 
18  L.  ed.  397;  The  Hine  v.  Trevor,  4  Wall.  555,  18  L.  ed.  451;  Ex 
parte  Easton,  95  U.  S.  70,  24  L.  ed.  373;  Moran  v.  Sturges,  154  U. 
S.  276,  14  S.  Ct.  1019.  38  L.  ed.  981. 

158  The  Chusan,  2  Story,  455,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2717. 

159  Carpenter  v.  The  Emma  Johnson,  1  Cliff.  633,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
2430. 

160  United  States  v.  Bevans,  3  Wheat.  337,  4  L.  ed.  404;  Jackson 
v.  The  Magnolia,  20  How.  296,  15  L.  ed.  909;  The  City  of  Panama,  101 
U.  S.  457,  25  L.  ed.  1061. 

161  Carpenter  v.  The  Emma  Johnson,  1  Cliff.  633,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
2430. 


Art.  Ill,  §  2,  CI.  1     Admiralty  Jurisdiction.  536 

control  it,161  or  modify  the  practice.162  But  the  jurisdiction 
cannot  be  enlarged  by  any  law  or  rule  of  court.163  The  term 
includes  jurisdiction  of  all  things  done  upon  and  relating  to 
the  sea  and  for  damages  for  injuries  on  the  high  seas,164  the 
subject  matter  in  cases  of  contract  and  the  locality  in  cases  of 
tort  being  the  true  tests  of  jurisdiction.165 

The  jurisdiction  is  not  confined  to  the  high  seas,  but  extends 
to  the  navigable  lakes  and  rivers  of  the  United  States,166  re- 
gardless of  the  ebb  and  flow  of  the  tide.167  The  grant  does 
not  operate  to  extend  control  over  waters  ceded  to  the  several 
states  and  does  not  affect  general  state  jurisdiction  over  state 
waters.168  The  power  of  the  states  to  regulate  their  fisheries 
was  not  surrendered  by  the  grant  of  admiralty  and  maritime 
jurisdiction.1 69 

162  The  Lottawanna,  21  Wall.  577,  22  L.  ed.  654;  The  Genessee 
Chief  v.  Fitzhugh,  12  How.  443,  13  L.  ed.  1058. 

163  The  Steamer  St.  Lawrence,  1  Black,  526,  17  L.  ed.  180;  Butler 
v.  Boston  Steamship  Co.,  130  TJ.  S.  557,  9  S.  Ct.  619,  32  L.  ed.  1017; 
The  Electron,  74  Fed.  695. 

164  Bingham  v.  Cabbot,  3  Dall.  33,  1  L.  ed.  491;  Janney  v.  Colum- 
bian Ins.  Co.,  10  Wheat.  418,  6  L.  ed.  354;  Mauro  v.  Almeida,  10 
Wheat.  486,  6  L.  ed.  369;  Sears  v.  Wills,  1  Black,  113,  17  L.  ed.  35; 
The  Barnstable,  181  U.  S.  467,  21  S.  Ct.  684,  45  L.  ed.  954. 

165  Waring  v.  Clarke,  5  How.  452/459,  12  L.  ed.  226;  New  Jersey 
Steam  Nav.  Co.  v.  Merchants'  Bank,  6  How.  392,  12  L.  ed.  465. 

166  The  Genessee  Chief  v.  Fitzhugh,  12  How.  454,  13  L.  ed.  1058; 
Fretz  v.  Bull,  12  How.  468,  13  L.  ed.  1068;  The  Eagle,  8  Wall.  20,  19 
L.  ed.  365;  Ex  parte  Boyer,  109  U.  S.  632,  3  S.  Ct.  435,  27  L.  ed.  1056; 
Malony  v.  Milwaukee,  1  Fed.  613;  The  Arkansas,  5  McCrary,  366,  17 
Fed.  384. 

167  The  Genessee  Chief  v.  Fitzhugh,  12  How.  454,  13  L.  ed.  1058; 
Jackson  v.  The  Magnolia,  20  How.  301,  15  L.  ed.  909;  The  Hine  v. 
Trevor,  24  Wall.  565,  18  L.  ed.  451;  In  re  Garnett,  141  TJ.  S.  15,  Ij. 
S.  Ct.  840,  35  L.  ed.  631. 

168  United  States  v.  Bevans,  3  Wheat.  387,  4  L.  ed.  404;  Steam- 
boat Co.  v.  Chase,  16  Wall.  531,  21  L.  ed.  369;  Smith  v.  Maryland, 
18  How.  76,  15  L.  ed.  269;  The  Wave  v.  Hyer,  2  Paine,  143,  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  1730;  United  States  v.  Peterson,  64  Fed.  147;  In  re  Kelley,  71 
Fed.  547. 

169  Smith  v.  Maryland,  18  How.  76,  15  L.  ed.  269;  Manchester  v. 
Massachusetts,  139  U.  S.  261,  11  S.  Ct.  563,  35  L.  ed.  159;  Corfield  v. 
Coryell,  4  Wash.  C.  C.  371,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3230;  The  Elexena,  53  Fed. 
366;  Dunham  v.  Lamphere,  3  Gray,  270. 


5S?  Admiralty  Jurisdiction.     Art.  Ill,  §  2,  CI.  1 

What  are  Admiralty  and  Maritime  Cases. 

The  subject  matter  of  a  transaction  or  the  locality  of  an  act 
done  determines  the  character  of  the  particular  case,170  but 
jurisdiction  over  the  case  does  not  constitute  the  case  itself.171 
The  citizenship  of  the  parties  to  the  cause  is  of  no  moment  in 
determining  jurisdiction;172  but  one  having  a  right  to  enforce 
a  lien  in  admiralty  may  waive  the  lien  and  sue  in  personam 
if  the  citizenship  of  the  parties  is  diverse,173  the  suit  thus 
ceasing  to  be  of  one  cognizable  in  a  court  of  admiralty.174  The 
jurisdiction  extends  to  all  maritime  contracts,  and  all  torts 
committed  on  navigable  waters,175  and  to  all  suits  for  liens  of 
materialmen  and  for  services,  both  in  personam  and  in  rem.176 
But  in  matters  of  contract  the  jurisdiction  of  courts  of  ad- 
miralty is  limited  to  those,  and  those  only,  which  are  mari- 
time.177 

A  bond  given  to  secure  the  performance  of  a  maritime  con- 
tract is  itself  a  maritime  contract  enforceable  in  admiralty;178 

170  Waring  v.  Clarke,  5  How.  452,  459,  12  L.  ed.  226;  New  Jersey 
Steam  Nav.   Co.  v.  Merchants'  Bank,  6  How.  392,  12  L.  465. 

171  American  Ins.   Co.   v.  Cotton,  1  Pet.  545,  7  L.  eel.  242. 

172  Peyroux  v.  Howard,  7  Pet.  324,  8  L.  ed.  700;  The  Calisto,  2 
Ware,  30,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2316. 

173  Norton  v.  Switzer,  93  U.  S.  356,  23  L.  ed.  903;  American  Steam- 
boat Co.  v.  Chase,  16  Wall.  533,  21  L.  ed.  369. 

174  Johnson  v.  Chicago  etc.  Elevator  Co.,  119  U.  S.  397,  7  S.  Ct. 
254,  30  L.  ed.  447. 

175  Waring  v.  Clarke,  5  How.  489,  12  L.  ed.  226;  Gloucester  Ins. 
Co.  v.  Younger,  2  Curt.  332,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5487;  De  Lovio  v.  Boit,  2 
Gall.  398,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3776, 

176  Sheppard  v.  Taylor,  5  Pet.  711,  8  L.  ed.  269;  The  General  Smith, 
4  Wheat.  443,  4  L.  ed.  609;  The  Thomas  Jefferson,  10  Wheat.  429,  6 
L.  ed.  358;  Leon  v.  Galceran,  11  Wall.  188,  20  L.  ed.  74;  Gardner  v. 
New  Jersey,  1  Pet.  Adm.  227,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5233;  Wick  v.  The  Samuel 
Strong,  6  McLean,  587,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,607;  The  Eobert  Fulton,  l 
Paine,  620,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,890;  Zane  v.  The  President,  4  Wash.  0. 
C.  453,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,201. 

177  The  Orleans  v.  Phoebus,  11  Pet.  183,  9  L.  ed.  677;  The  Thomas 
Jefferson,  10  Wheat.  489,  6  L.  ed.  358;  Andrews  v.  Wall,  3  How.  572, 
11  L.  ed.  729;  People's  Ferry  Co.  v.  Beers,  20  How.  401,  15  L.  ed. 
96;  Ex  parte  Easton,  95  U.  S.  72,  24  L.  ed.  373;  The  Kesolute,  16S 
U.  S.  439,  18  S.  Ct.  112,  42  L.  ed.  533. 

178  Holler  v.  Fox,  51  Fed.  298. 


Art.  Ill,  §  2,  CI.  1     Admiralty  Jurisdiction.  538 

as  also  is  a  bottomry  bond;179  but  a  mere  mortgage  of  a  ship, 
other  than  that  of  an  hypothecated  bottomry,  is  not  such  a 
contract.180  A  contract  to  build  a  ship  or  to  furnish  materials 
for  that  purpose  is  not  maritime,181  and  so  a  lien  based  upon 
a  contract  is  not  enforceable  in  admiralty;182  but  a  contract 
to  repair  a  ship  is  maritime  and  a  lien  may  be  enforced,183  un- 
less the  repairs  were  made  in  the  vessel's  home  port,  when  the 
enforcement  of  the  lien  will  depend  upon  its  existence  under 
local  law.184  An  agreement  of  consortship  may  be  enforced 
in  admiralty;185  also  a  contract  of  affreightment;186  of  wharf- 
age;187 of  pilotage;188  of  marine  insurance.189  A  partnership 
agreement  between  owners  of  a  vessel  or  a  charter  is  not  a 
maritime  contract,190  and  admiralty  cannot  entertain  an  ac- 

179  Blaine  v.  The  Charles  Carter,  4  Cr.  332,  2  L.  ed.  636. 

180  Bogart  v.  The  Steamboat  John  Jay,  17  How.  402,  15  L.  ed. 
95;  Schuchardt  v.  Babbidge,  19  How.  240,  15  L.  ed.  625;  The  J.  E. 
Rumbell,  148  U.  S.  15,  13  S.  Ct.  498,  37  L.  ed.  345. 

181  Boach  v.  Chapman,  22  How.  132,  16  L.  ed.  294;  Morewood  v. 
Enequist,  23  How.  494,  16  L.  ed.  516;  Edwards  v.  Elliott,  21  Wall. 
556,  22  L.  ed.  487. 

182  People's  Ferry  Co.  v.  Beers,  20  How.  401,  16  L.  ed.  96;  Norton 
v.  Switzer,  93  U.  S.  366,  23  L.  ed.  903. 

183  The  Aurora,  1  Wheat.  105,  4  L.  ed.  45;  The  General  Smith,  4 
Wheat.  443,  4  L.  ed.  609. 

184  The  General  Smith,  4  Wheat.  443,  4  L.  ed.  609;  New  Jersey 
Steam  Nav.  Co.  v.  Merchants'  Bank,  6  How.  391,  12  L.  ed.  465;  The 
Glide,  167  IT.  S.  624,  17  S.  Ct.  930,  42  L.  ed.  296. 

185  Andrews  v.  Wall,  3  How.  571,  11  L.  ed.  729. 

186  New  Jersey  Steam  Nav.  Co.  v.  Merchants'  Bank,  6  How.  385, 

12  L.  ed.  465;  Morewood  v.  Enequist,  23  How.  493,  16.  L.  ed.  516; 
Sears  v.  Wills,  1  Black,  112,  17  L.  ed.  35;  The  Moses  Taylor,  4  Wall. 
427,  18  L.  ed.  397;  The  Eddy,  5  Wall.  494,  18  L.  ed.  486;  Baltimore 
etc.  Co.  v.  Patterson,  106  Fed.  736. 

18T  Ex  parte  Easton,  95  U.  S.  72;  Braisted  v.  Denton,  115  Fed. 
428. 

188  Hobart  v.  Drogan,  10  Pet.  120,  9  L.  ed.  363;  Ex  parte  McNeil, 

13  WalL  242,  20  L.  ed.  624;  Ex  parte  Hagar,  104  U.  S.  521,  26  L. 
ed.  816. 

189  Croudson  v.  Leonard,  4  Cr.  437,  2  L.  ed.  670;  New  England  etc. 
Ins.  Co.  v.  Dunham,  11  Wall.  31,  20  L.  ed.  90. 

loo  Ward  v.  Thompson,  22  How.  333,  16  L.  ed.  249. 


539  Admiralty  Jurisdiction.     Art.  Ill,  §  2,  CI.  1 

tion  for  an  accounting  under  such  an  agreement.191  Admiralty 
has  jurisdiction  of  a  suit  to  recover  a  seaman's  wages,  both  in 
rem  and  in  personam,192  A  contract  for  services,  such  as  are 
usually  performed  by  a  ship's  brokers  and  business  agents,  and 
performed  on  land,  is  not,  however,  a  maritime  contract.193 

The  jurisdiction  extends  to  actions  of  tort  committed  on 
navigable  waters.194  although  committed  within  the  body  of  a 
county,195  and  without  reference  to  the  voyage  or  destination 
of  the  vessel.196  It  depends  solely  upon  the  commission  of  the 
wrongful  act  upon  navigable  water.197  A  case  of  collision  is  a 
marine  tort,198  and  admiralty  has  jurisdiction  of  a  suit  for  an 
injury  caused  to  a  vessel  by  running  upon  a  sunken  obstruc- 
tion.199 Where,  however,  the  substance  and  consummation  of 
the  wrong  take  place  on  land  and  not  upon  the  water  admiralty 
lias  no  jurisdiction.200  So  where  the  injury  consists  in  setting 
buildings  on  fire  from  a  passing  vessel  a  suit  cannot  be  main- 
tained in  admiralty.201  To  be  cognizable  in  admiralty  a  tort 
need  not  arise  on  the  high  seas  or  upon  the  navigable  waters  of 
the  United  States;  it  may  even  originate  in  a  foreign  port  and 

191  Steamboat  Orleans  v.  Phoebus,  11  Pet.  183,  9  L.  ed.  677;  Grant 
v.  Poillon,  20  How.  169,  15  L.  ed.  871. 

192  Sheppard  v.  Taylor,  5  Pet.  711,  8  L.  ed.  269;  Leon  v.  Galeeran, 
11  Wall.  188,  20  L.  ed.  74. 

193  The  Humboldt,  86  Fed.  351. 

194  Philadelphia  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Philadelphia  etc.  Towboat  Co., 
23  How.  215,  16  L.  ed.  433. 

195  Roberts  v.  Skolfield,  3  Ware,  184,  8  Am.  Law  Reg.  156,  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  11,917;  Lathers  v.  Blessing,  105  XL  S.  630,  26  L.  ed.  1192. 

196  In  re  Garnett,  141  TJ.  S.  16,  11  S.  Ct.  840,  35  L.  ed.  631. 

197  The  Belfast,  7  Wall.  637,  19  L.  ed.  266;  American  Steamboat 
Co.  v.  Chase,  16  Wall.  531,  21  L.  ed.  364;  In  re  Fassett,  142  U.  S. 
479,  12  S.  Ct.  295,  35  L.  ed.  1087. 

198  Hine  v.  The  Trevor,  4  Wall.  568,  18  L.  ed.  451. 

199  Panama  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Napier  etc.  Co.,  166  U.  S.  285,  17  S.  Ct. 
572,  41  L.  ed.  1004. 

200  Johnson  v.  Chicago  etc.  Elevator  Co.,  119  TJ.  S.  397,  7  S.  Ct. 
254,  30  L.  ed.  441. 

201  Ex  parte  Phenix  Ins.  Co.,  118  TJ.  S.  616,  7  S.  Ct.  25,  30  L.  ed. 
274. 


Art.  Ill,  §  2,  CI.  1     Admiralty  Jurisdiction.  540 

be  the  subject  of  an  action  in  United  States  courts.202  An  in- 
jury to  a  passenger  from  a  boiler  explosion  is  a  maritime  tort.203 
In  the  absence,  however,  of  some  statute,  state  or  federal,  a 
court  of  admiralty  cannot  entertain  an  action  for  the  death  of 
a  person  caused  by  another's  negligence  on  the  high  seas,204 
and  even  where  a  local  statute  permits  an  action,  admiralty 
cannot  entertain  a  libel  in  rem  if  the  statute  gives  no  lien.205 
Every  violent  dispossession  of  property  on  the  seas  is  prima  facie 
a  maritime  tort,206  but  admiralty  jurisdiction  is  not  confined 
to  torts  committed  by  direct  force;  it  extends  to  torts  of  neg- 
ligence and  malfeasance.207 

The  states  cannot,  by  local  legislation,  enlarge  or  limit  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  federal  courts  in  admiralty.208  By  this 
clause  the  states  parted  with  all  power  to  legislate  concerning 
admiralty  and  maritime  matters;209  accordingly  they  cannot 
confer  on  their  own  courts  jurisdiction  of  suits  cognizable 
solely  in  admiralty.210  But  in  certain  cases  jurisdiction  is 
concurrent,  and  the  ninth  section  of  the  judiciary  act  expressly 
saves  to  suitors  in  all  cases  a  common-law  remedy  where  the 
common  law  is  competent  to  give  it.211     So  personal  suits  on 

202  Panama  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Napier  etc.  Co.,  166  U.  S.  285,  17 
S.  Ct.  572,  41  L.  ed.  1004. 

203  The  New  World  v.  King,  16  How.  472,  14  L.  ed.  1019. 

204  The  Harrisburg,  119  U.  S.  214,  7  S.  Ct.  140,  30  L.  ed.  358; 
The  Alaska,  130  U.  S.  209,  9.S.  Ct.  461,  32  L.  ed.  923;  Butler  v.  Boston 
Steamship  Co.,  130  U.  S.  555,  9  S.  Ct.  612,  32  L.  ed.  1017. 

205  The  Corsair,  145  U.  S.  343,  12  S.  Ct.  949,  36  L.  ed.  727. 

206  L  'Invincible,  1  Wheat.  257,  4  L.  ed.  80. 

207  Philadelphia  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Philadelphia  etc.  Towboat  Co., 
23  How.  215,  216,  16  L.  ed.  433. 

208  The  Steamer  St.  Lawrence,  1  Black,  526,  17  L.  ed.  180;  The 
Hine  v.  Trevor,  4  Wall.  570,  18  L.  ed.  451;  The  Lottawanna,  21  Wall. 
580,  22  L.  ed.  654;  The  J.  E.  Eumbell,  148  U.  S.  12,  13  S.  Ct.  498,  37 
L.  ed.  345;  New  Zealand  Ins.  Co.  v.  Earnmoor  S.  S.  Co.,  79  Fed.  369; 
The  H.  E.  Willard,  53  Fed.  599. 

209  Smith   v.  Maryland,   18   How.   76,   15  L.   ed.   269. 

210  Taylor  v.  Carryl,  20  How.  598,  15  L.  ed.  1028. 

211  Waring  v.  Clarke,  5  How.  461,  12  L.  ed.  226;  New  Jersey  Steam 
Nav.  Co.  v.  Merchants'  Bank,  6  How.  390,  12  L.  ed.  465;  Taylor  v. 
Carryl,  20  How.  598,  15  L.  ed.  1028;  The  Belfast,  7  Wall.  644,  19  L. 


54:1  Admiralty  Jurisdiction".     Art.  Ill,  §  2,  CI.  1 

maritime  contracts  may  be  maintained  in  state  courts,212  and 
an  action  to  enforce  a  lien  for  towage  by  foreclosure  under  a 
state  law  is  a  suit  in  personam  to  enforce  a  common-law  remedy 
saved  by  the  Eevised  Statutes,  section  563.213  An  action  for 
damages  caused  by  a  burning  vessel  cut  loose  by  the  defend- 
ant's servants  is  an  action  for  a  remedy  which  the  common  law 
is  competent  to  give.214 

While  the  states  cannot  confer  any  jurisdiction  upon  ad- 
miralty courts,215  yet  a  lien  given  by  local  law  for  a  mari- 
time service  may  be  enforced  in  admiralty.216  In  all  such  cases, 
however,  the  jurisdiction  to  enforce  the  lien  is,  because  of  the 
maritime  nature  of  the  service  for  which  it  is  given,  exclusive 
in  the  admiralty  courts.217 

ed.  266;  Leon  v.  Galceran,  11  Wall.  190,  20  L.  ed.  74;  Schoonmakcr 
v.  Gilmore,  102  U.  S.  119,  26  L.  ed.  95. 

212  Manchester  v.  Massachusetts,  139  U.  S.  262,  11  S.  Ct.  559,  35 
L.  ed.  159. 

213  Knapp  v.  McCaffrey,  177  U.  S.  647,  20  S.  Ct.  854,  44  L.  ed. 
921. 

214  Chappell  v.  Bradshaw,  128  U.  S.  134,  9  S.  Ct.  40,  32  L.  ed.  369. 

215  The  Steamer  St.  Lawrence,  1  Black,  526,  17  L.  ed.  180;  The 
H.  E.  Willard,  53  Fed.  600;  The  Electron,  74  Fed.  695. 

216  Peyroux  v.  Howard,  7  Pet.  341,  8  L.  ed.  700;  Steamboat  Orleans 
v.  Phoebus,  11  Pet.  184,  9  L.  ed.  677;  Maguire  v.  Card,  21  How.  251, 
16  L.  ed.  118;  The  Ship  Potomac,  2  Black,  583,  17  L.  ed.  263. 

217  The  J.  E.  Eumbell,  148  U.  S.  12,  13  S.  Ct.  498,  37  L.  ed.  345; 
The  Glide,  167  U.  S.  624,  17  S.  Ct.  930,  42  L.  ed.  296.. 


Art.  Ill,  §  2,  CI.  2         Supreme  Court.  542 

2.  In  all  cases  affecting  Ambassadors,  other  public 
Ministers  and  Consuls,  and  those  in  which  a  State  shall 
be  party,  the  Supreme  Court  shall  have  original  juris- 
diction. In  all  the  other  cases  before  mentioned,  the 
Supreme  Court  shall  have  appellate  jurisdiction,  both 
as  to  law  and  fact,  with  such  exceptions  and  under 
such  regulations  as  the  Congress  shall  make. 

Original  Jurisdiction. 

The  supreme  court  of  the  United  States  exists  by  virtue  of 
a  direct  grant  of  power  from  the  people,1  and  this  clause  de- 
clares the  extent  of  its  original  jurisdiction,2  which  Congress 
cannot  enlarge  or  abridge.3  Congress  cannot  confer  original 
jurisdiction  in  cases  other  than  those  expressly  enumerated  by 
the  constitution.4  Its  jurisdiction  is  both  original  and  exclu- 
sive,5 and  coextensive  with  the  judicial  power;6  but  it  is  special 
and  limited,  and  confined  to  particular  cases,  controversies  and 
parties,7  and  in  those  cases  where  the  constitution  confers 
original  jurisdiction,  appellate  jurisdiction  is  impliedly  forbid- 
den.8 

1  Rhode  Island  v.  Massachusetts,  12  Pet.  720,  9  L.  ed.  1233. 

2  Pennsylvania  v.  Quicksilver  Co.,  10  Wall.  553,  19  L.  ed.  998; 
Delafield  v.  State,  2  Hill,  159. 

3  Cohen  v.  Virginia,  6  Wheat.  396,  5  L.  ed.  257;  United  States  v. 
Ferreira,  13  How.  49,  14  L.  ed.  42;  Ex  parte  Yerger,  8  Wall.  98,  19 
L.  ed.  332;  United  States  v.  Old  Settlers,  148  U.  S.  466,  13  S.  Ct.  650, 
37  L.  ed.  509;  California  v.  Southern  Pacific  Co.,  157  U.  S.  261,  It 
S.  Ct.  1138,  39  L.  ed.  683. 

4  Ex  parte  Yerger,  8  Wall.  98,  19  L.  ed.  332;  In  re  Metzger,  5  How. 
176,  12  L.  ed.  104;  In  re  Kaine,  14  How.  103,  14  L.  ed.  345. 

5  United  States  v.  Ortega,  11  Wheat.  467,  6  L.  ed.  521;  Houston  v. 
Moore,  5  Wheat.  1,  5  L.  ed.  19;  Marbury  v.  Madison,  1  Cr.  137,  2 
L.  ed.  60;  Osborne  v.  United  States  Bank,  9  Wheat.  738,  6  L.  ed. 
204.  But  see  United  States  v.  Eavara,  2  Dall.  297,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
16,122;  Chisholm  v.  Georgia,  2  Dall.  419,  1  L.  ed.  440;  The  Exchange 
v.  McFaddin,  7  Cr.  116,  3  L.  ed.  287. 

6  Osborne  v.  United  States  Bank,  9  Wheat.  820,  6  L.  ed.  204. 

7  Rhode  Island  v.  Massachusetts,  12  Pet.  657,  9  L.  ed.  1233. 

8  Osborne  v.  United  States  Bank,  9  Wheat.  820,  6  L.  ed-  204. 


543  Supreme  Court,  Art.  Ill,  §  2,  CI.  2 

The  grant  of  original  jurisdiction  in  the  cases  specified 
implies  a  prohibition  against  the  concurrent  exercise  of  that 
jurisdiction  by  any  other  courts.9  The  practice  in  the  su- 
preme court  is  regulated  by  the  common  law  and  acts  of 
Congress,10  but  the  court  may  make  rules,  not  inconsistent 
with  federal  laws,  prescribing  forms  of  writs  and  other  pro- 
cess, at  common  law,  as  well  as  in  equity  or  admiralty,  in 
all  the  federal  courts,11  and  in  the  absence  of  congressional 
legislation  may  prescribe  the  form  and  mode  of  proceedings 
so  as  to  attain  the  object  for  which  jurisdiction  was  given.12 
It  cannot,  however,  by  rule,  enlarge  or  restrict  its  own  inherent 
jurisdiction  and  powers,  or  those  of  any  federal  court  or  judge.13 
The  constitution  left  it  to  Congress  to  organize  the  supreme 
court  and  to  define  its  powers  consistently  with  the  constitution, 
and  to  distribute  the  residue  of  the  judicial  power.14  The 
original  jurisdiction  of  the  supreme  court  should  be  sparingly 
exercised  and  not  expanded  by  construction;  it  does  not  follow 
that  because  a  case,  by  virtue  of  its  subject  matter,  comes  within 
the  federal  judicial  power,  it  is  within  the  original  jurisdiction 
of  the  supreme  court.15  Its  original  jurisdiction  depends 
solely  upon  the  character  of  the  parties,  and  is  confined  to  cases 
in  which  are  the  parties  enumerated.16 

The  supreme  court's  original  jurisdiction  extends  to  all  cases 
affecting  foreign  ministers,  although  they  may  not  be  parties 
to  the  record,17  but  although  the  constitution  vests  in  the  su- 
preme court,  original  jurisdiction  in  cases  affecting  ambassadors 

9  Martmry  v.  Madison,  1  Cr.  173,  2  L.  ed.  60;  Virginia  v.  Kives, 
100  U.  S.  327,  25  L.  ed.  667. 

10  Graham  v.  Bayne,  18  How.  62,  15  L.  ed.  265. 

li  Hudson  v.  Parker,  156  TJ.  S.  282,  15  S.  Ct.  450,  39  L.  ed.  424. 

12  Florida  v.  Georgia,  17  How.  478,  15  L.  ed.  181. 

13  Hudson  v.  Parker,  156  U.  S.  284,  15  S.  Ct.  450,  39  L.  ed.  424. 

14  Chisholm  v.  Georgia,  2  Dall.  419,  1  L.  ed.  440;  Martin  v.  Hunter, 
1  Wheat.  304,  4  L.  ed.  97;  Cohens  v.  Virginia,  6  Wheat.  264,  5  L.  ed. 
257;  Osborne  v.  United  States  Bank,  9  Wheat.  738,  6  L.  ed.  204;  Rhoda 
Island  v.  Massachusetts,  12  Pet.  657,  9  L.  ed.  1233. 

15  California  v.  Southern  Pacific  Co.,  157  U.  S.  261,  15  S.  Ct.  59], 
9  L.  ea.  1233. 

16  Louisiana  v.  Texas,  176  U.  S.  16,  20  S.  Ct.  251,  44  L.  ed.  347. 

17  Osborne  v.  United  States  Bank,  9  Wheat.  854,  6  L.  ed.  204. 


Art.  Ill,  §  2,  CI.  2         Supreme  Court.  544 

and  consuls,  that  jurisdiction  is  not  exclusive,  and  subordinate 
federal  courts  may  be  invested  with  a  concurrent  jurisdiction,18 
and  the  jurisdiction  of  an  inferior  court  over  a  controversy  be- 
tween a  citizen  and  an  alien  is  not  defeated  because  the  alien 
is  a  citizen  of  a  foreign  government.19  A  state  court  has  no 
jurisdiction  over  an  action  against  a  foreign  minister;  his  per- 
son is  inviolable  and  his  residence  is  regarded  as  a  part  of  the 
territory  of  the  government  from  which  he  is  sent.20  The  ser- 
vants of  foreign  ministers  have  been  held  to  be  entitled  to  the 
same  protection,21  and  the  secretary  of  a  foreign  legation  has 
been  held  exempt  from  civil  and  criminal  process.22  But  it 
has  been  held  that  a  consul  is  not  a  foreign  minister,  and  in 
the  absence  of  any  federal  law  to  the  contrary,  a  state  may  en- 
tertain a  suit  against  him,  or  imprison  him  for  a  crime.23  An 
indictment  against  a  private  person  for  assault  upon  an  ambas- 
sador or  public  minister  is  not  a  case  affecting  such  minister 
within  this  clause.24 

Jurisdiction  of  suits  wherein  a  state  shall  be  a  party  was 
given  to  the  supreme  court  to  secure  an  impartial  tribunal  for 
their  adjudication.25  This  clause  does  not  contemplate  politi- 
cal communities  other  than  states.26  The  "state"  must  be  a 
member  of  the  Union,  with  a  government  competent  to  repre- 
sent it  in  its  relations  with  the  national  government,27  and  the 

18  United  States  v.  Ravara,  2  Dall.  297;  Bors  v.  Preston,  111  U. 
S.  256,  4  S.  Ct.  407,  28  L.  ed.  419;  St.  Luke's  Hospital  v.  Barclay,  3 
Blatchf.  259,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,241;  Graham  v.  Stucken,  4  Blatchf. 
50,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5677;  Gittings  v.  Crawford,  Taney,  1,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
5465;  Froment  v.  Duclos,  30  Fed.  385;  In  re  Iasigi,  79  Fed.  754. 

19  Bors  v.  Preston,  111  IT.  S.  261,  4  S.  Ct.  407,  28  L.  ed.  419. 

20  United  States  v.  Benner,  Baldw.  234,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,568;  Ex 
parte  Cabrera,  1  Wash.  C.  C.  232,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2278;  United  States 
v.  La   Fontaine,  4  Cr.  C.  C.  173,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,550. 

21  United  States  v.  La  Fontaine,  4  Cr.  C.  C.  173,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
15,550. 

22  Ex  parte  Cabrera,  1  Wash.  C.  C.  232,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2278. 

23  Wilcox  v.  Luco,  118  Cal.  642,  62  Am.  St.  Eep.  307,  50  Pac.  759, 
45  L.  R.  A.  579.  But  see  Miller  v.  Van  Loben  Sels,  66  Cal.  342,  5  Pac. 
513;   Commonwealth  v.  Kosloff,  5  Serg.  &  R.  545. 

24  United  States  v.  Ortega,  11  Wheat.  467,  6  L.  ed.  521. 

25  Chisholm  v.  Georgia,  2  Dall.  475,  1  L.  ed.  440. 

26  Texas  v.  White,  7  Wall.  719,  19  L.  ed.  227. 

27  Texas  v.  White,  7  Wall.  726,  19  L.  ed.  227. 


545  Supreme  Court.  Art.  Ill,  §  2,  CI.  2 

jurisdiction  conferred  is  jurisdiction  over  civil  cases.28  The  su- 
preme court  has  no  original  jurisdiction  in  a  case  where  a 
state  is  endeavoring  to  enforce  its  domestic  penal  laws.29 

Unlike  suits  affecting  ambassadors  and  public  ministers,  in 
a  suit  in  which  a  state  is  a  party,  it  must  be  a  party  to  the 
record  to  give  the  supreme  court  jurisdiction;30  it  must  be  a 
case  where  a  state  is  at  the  same  time  nominally  a  party  and 
substantially  affected,31  or  has  a  direct  interest  in  the  contro- 
versy,32 as  where  the  suit  is  by  or  against  the  governor  in  his 
official  capacity,33  or  a  suit  against  any  other  state  officer  where 
the  state  is  the  real  party  in  interest.34  The  mere  fact,  how- 
ever, that  a  state  is  a  party  is  not  a  conclusive  test  of  jurisdic- 
tion.35 Thus  the  original  jurisdiction  of  the  supreme  court 
does  not  extend  to  a  suit  by  a  state  against  one  of  its  own  cor- 
porations :36  nor  to  a  suit  by  a  state  to  recover  a  penalty  for  a 
breach  of  its  own  laws,36a  nor  to  an  action  by  a  state  upon  a 

28  Chisholm  v.  Georgia,  2  Dall.  431,  1  L.  ed.  440;  In  re  Pacific  Kail- 
way  Com.,  12  Saw.  582,  32  Fed.  255. 

29  Cohens  v.  Virginia,  6  Wheat.  264,  5  L.  ed.  257;  Wisconsin  v. 
Pelican  Ins.  Co.,  127  U.  S.  298,  8  S.  Ct.  738,  32  L.  ed.  239. 

30  Bank  of  United  States  v.  Planters'  Bank,  9  Wheat.  906,  6  L. 
ed.  244;  Osborne  v.  United  States  Bank,  9  Wheat.  854,  6  L.  ed.  204; 
Pennsylvania  v.  Wheeling  Br.,  9  How.  647,  13  L.  ed.  294. 

31  Fowler  v.  Lindsey,  3  Dall.  411,  1  L.  ed.  658;  New  Jersey  v. 
New  York,  5  Pet.  287,  8  L.  ed.  127;  Cherokee  Nation  v.  Georgia,  5 
Pet.  1,  8  L.  ed.  25;  Ei  parte  Madrazo,  7  Pet.  627,  8  L.  ed.  808;  Khode 
Island  v.  Massachusetts,  12  Pet.  67,  9  L.  ed.  1233;  Pennsylvania  v. 
Wheeling  Br.,  18  How.  421,  15  L.  ed.  435. 

32  Pennsylvania  v.  Wheeling  Br.,  9  How.  647,  13  L.  ed.  294. 

33  Georgia  v.  Brailsford,  2  Dall.  402,  1  L.  ed.  433;  Kentucky  v. 
Dennison,  24  How.  97,  16.  L.  ed.  717;  Governor  of  Georgia  v.  Slaves, 
1  Pet.  124,  7  L.  ed.  73. 

34  Hagood  v.  Southern,  117  U.  S.  €7,  6  S.  Ct.  608,  29  L.  ed.  805; 
Louisiana  v.  Steele,  134  U.  S.  232,  10  S.  Ct.  511,  33  L.  ed.  891. 

35  Wisconsin  v.  Pelican  Ins.  Co.,  127  U.  S.  257,  8  S.  Ct.  738,  32  L. 
ed.  239;  California  v.  Southern  Pacific  Co.,  157  U.  S.  261,  15  S.  Ct. 
591,  39  L.  ed.  683. 

30  Pennsylvania  v.  Quicksilver  Co.,  10  Wall.  556,  19  L.  ed.  998. 
36a  Wisconsin  v.  Pelican  Ins.  Co.,  127  U.  S.  294,  8  S.  Ct.  738,  32 
L.  ed.  239. 

Notes  on  Constitution — 35 


Art.  Ill,  §  2,  CI.  2         Supreme  Cotjet.  546 

judgment  recovered  in  its  own  courts.37  Nor  will  the  supreme 
court,  in  the  exercise  of  its  original  jurisdiction,  determine 
political  questions  as  between  states.38  There  must  be  some 
substantial  right  of  property  involved.39  A  suit  to  determine 
boundaries  between  states  involves  such  a  right  and  is  cogniz- 
able;40 as  also  does  a  suit  by  the  United  States  to  determine 
the  boundary  Between  a  state  and  a  territory.41  A  suit  by  one 
state  against  another  to  determine  the  right  of  the  latter  to 
deprive  the  former  of  water  from  a  river  flowing  through  both 
is  within  the  original  jurisdiction  of  the  supreme  court.42 

Appellate  Jurisdiction. 

In  those  cases  where  the  constitution  confers  original  juris- 
diction upon  the  supreme  court  appellate  jurisdiction  is  forbid- 
den; in  every  other  case  the  power  is  to  be  exercised  as  original 
or  appellate  as  Congress  may  direct,43  and  its  appellate  juris- 
diction extends  to  all  other  cases  to  which  the  judicial  power 
of  the  United  States  extends,  "with  such  exceptions  as  Con- 
gress shall  make";44  but,  as  is  the  case  with  the  exercise  of 
original  jurisdiction  by  inferior  courts,  the  power  to  exercise 
appellate  jurisdiction  must  come  from  Congress.45     The  con- 

37  Huntington  v.  Attrill,  146  U.  S.  672,  13  S.  Ct.  224,  36  L.  ed. 
1123. 

38  Louisiana  v.  Texas,  176  TJ.  S.  23,  20  S.  Ct.  251,  44  L.  ed.  347. 

39  New  York  v.  Connecticut,  4  Dall.  4,  1  L.  ed.  715. 

40  New  Jersey  v.  New  York,  5  Pet.  290,  8  L.  ed.  127;  Rhode  Island 
v.  Massachusetts,  12  Pet.  720,  9  L.  ed.  1233;  Missouri  v.  Iowa,  7  How. 
677,  12  L.  ed.  861;  Florida  v.  Georgia,  17  How.  491,  15  L.  ed.  181; 
Missouri  v.  Kentucky,  11  Wall.  395,  20  L.  ed.  116;  Virginia  v.  Ten- 
nessee, 148  U.  S.  504,  13  S.  Ct.  728,  37  L.  ed.  537. 

41  United  States  v.  Texas,  143  TJ.  S.  641,  12  S.  Ct.  488,  36  L.  ed. 
285. 

42  Kansas  v.  Colorado,  185  TJ.  S.  142,  22  S.  Ct.  552,  46  L.  ed.  838. 

43  Osborne  v.  United  States  Bank,  9  Wheat.  820,  6  L.  ed.  204. 

44  United  States  v.  American  Bell  Telephone  Co.,  159  U.  S.  543, 
16  S.  Ct.  69,  40  L.  ed.  255. 

45  United  States  v.  More,  3  Cr.  173,  2  U.  ed.  397;  United  States 
v.  Young,  94  U.  S.  259,  24  L.  ed.  153;  United  States  v.  Sanges,  144 
U.  S.  319,  12  S.  Ct.  609,  36  L.  ed.  445;  National  Exchange  Bank  r. 
Peters,  144  U.  S.  572,  12  S.  Ct.  767,  36  L.  ed.  545;  Colorado  Min.  Co. 
v.  Turck,  150  U.  S.  141,  14  S.  Ct.  35,  37  L.  ed.  1030. 


547  Supreme  Court.  Art.  Ill,  §  2,  CI.  2 

stitution  gives  the  supreme  court  capacity  to  take  jurisdiction.. 
and  an  act  of  Congress  is  necessary  to  give  the  requisite  au- 
thority to  exercise  it.46  So  if  Congress  has  provided  no  rule 
to  regulate  the  proceedings  of  the  supreme  court,  it  cannot 
exercise  appellate  jurisdiction  ;47  but  if  the  rule  has  been  given 
it  cannot  be  departed  from.48  By  the  judiciary  act  of  1789, 
Congress  made  exceptions  to  the  appellate  jurisdiction  of  the 
court  by  affirmatively  stating  its  jurisdiction,  thus  implying  a 
negative  on  its  exercise  of  a  greater  jurisdiction;  but  where 
the  jurisdiction  is  described  in  general  terms  so  as  to  compre- 
hend a  particular  case,  no  presumption  can  be  indulged  of  an 
intent  to  restrict  such  jurisdiction.49 

"Where  original  jurisdiction  is  founded  on  the  character  of 
the  parties,  the  judicial  power  cannot  be  exercised  in  its  ap- 
pellate form;50  but  where  it  is  founded  on  the  nature  of  the 
controversy  the  appellate  jurisdiction  attaches.51  The  essential 
criterion  of  appellate  jurisdiction  is  that  it  raises  and  corrects 
proceedings  in  a  cause  already  instituted.52  The  object  and 
policy  of  the  acts  of  Congress  in  relation  to  appeals  have  been 
to  save  the  expense  and  delay  of  repeated  appeals  in  the  same 
suit,53  and  the  principle  upon  which  appellate  jurisdiction  from 
state  courts  is  allowed  is  to  grant  efficient  and  just  means  of 
self-protection.54 

The  jurisdiction  of  the  supreme  court  over  inferior  courts 
is  strictly   appellate.55     It  is  not  limited  to   any   particular 

46  Daniels  v.  Railroad  Co.,  3  Wall.  254,  18  L.  ed.  227. 

47  Wiscart  v.  D'Auchy,  3  Dall.  328,  1  L.  ed    619. 

48  Wiscart  v.  D'Auchy,  3  Dall.  328,  1  L.  ed.  619;  Ex  parte  Mc- 
Cardle,  7  Wall.  513,  19  L.  ed.  264;  The  Francis  Wright,  105  U.  S. 
384,  26  L.  ed.  1100;  American  Construction  Co.  v.  Jacksonville  etc. 
Ky.  Co.,  148  U.  S.  378,  13  S.  Ct.  758,  37  L.  ed.  486. 

49  United  States  v.  American  Bell  Telephone  Co.,  159  U.  S.  549, 
16  S.  Ct.  69,  40  L.  ed.  255. 

50  Osborne  v.  United  States  Bank,  9  Wheat.  820,  6  L.  ed.  204. 

51  Martin  v.  Hunter,  1  Wheat.  304,  4  L.  ed.  97;  Cohen  v.  Virginia, 
6  Wheat.  264,  5  L.  ed.  257. 

52  Marbury  v.  Madison,  1  Cr.  175,  2  L.  ed.  60. 

53  Forgay  v.  Conrad,  6  How.  206,  12  L.  ed.  404. 

54  Scott  v.  Jones,  5  How.  343,  12  L.  ed.  181. 
65  Gaines  v.  Eelf,  15  Pet.  17,  10  L.  ed.  642. 


Art.  Ill,  §  2,  CI.  2        Supreme  Court.  548 

courts.558  It  may  be  exercised  over  territorial  courts,56  but 
not  without  authority  of  Congress.57  The  twenty-fifth  section 
of  the  judiciary  act  allows  writs  of  error  to  the  supreme  court 
from  state  courts  where  federal  rights  and  questions  are  in- 
volved, and  was  within  the  power  of  Congress  to  enact,58  but 
this  gives  to  the  supreme  court  no  general  power  of  review  for 
the  correction  of  errors.69  The  supreme  court  may  review 
judgments  of  the  court  of  claims  in  the  exercise  of  its  general 
jurisdiction  ;60  but  the  act  confers  power  to  review  questions 
of  law  only.61  Its  jurisdiction  in  prize  cases  is  appellate  only.62 
It  has  no  appellate  power  over  special  tribunals,  and  cannot  take 
jurisdiction  of  any  decision,  on  appeal,  unless  made  by  an  in- 
ferior court  exercising  independently  the  judicial  power  granted 
to  the  United  States.63 

The  federal  system  of  criminal  law  does  not  contemplate  a 
general  right  of  appeal  to  the  supreme  court  in  criminal  cases  ;64 
the  authority  to  review  such  cases  must  be  expressly  given.65 

55a  Martin  v.  Hunter,  1  Wheat.  304,  4  L.  ed.  97;  Cohen  v.  Virginia, 
6  Wheat.  264,  5  L.  ed.  257;  Dodge  v.  Woolsey,  18  How.  331,  15  L.  ed. 
401;  Ableman  v.  Booth,  21  How.  506,  16  L.  ed.  169. 

56  Benner  v.  Porter,  9  How.  244,  13  L.  ed.  119;  Hunt  v.  Palao,  4 
How.  589,  11  L.  ed.  1115;  Freeborn  v.  Smith,  2  Wall.  173,  17  L.  ed. 
922. 

57  McNulty  v.  Batty,  10  How.  79,  13  L.  ed.  333. 

58  Martin  v.  Hunter,  1  Wheat.  351,  4  L.  ed.  97;  Murdock  v.  City 
of  Memphis,  20  Wall.  619,  22  L.  ed.  429. 

59  Central  Land  Co.  v.  Laidley,  159  U.  S.  110,  16  S.  Ct.  80,  40  L. 
ed.  91. 

60  United  States  v.  Jones,  119  U.  S.  480,  7  S.  Ct.  283,  30  L.  ed.  440. 
ci   Talbert  v.  United  States,  155  U.  S.  46,  15  S.  Ct.  4,  39  L.  ed. 

64. 

62  The  Alicia,  7  Wall.  573,  19  L.  ed.  84. 

63  Gordon  v.  United  States,  117  U.  S.  704,  2  Wall.  561,  17  L.  ed. 
921. 

64  Ex  parte  Watkins,  3  Pet.  201,  7  L.  ed.  650;  Forsyth  v.  United 
States,  9  How.  572,  13  L.  ed.  262;  United  States  v.  Perrin,  131  U. 
S.  57,  9  S.  Ct.  681,  33  L.  ed.  88. 

65  Cross  v.  United  States,  145  U.  S.  574,  12  S.  Ct.  842,  36  L.  ed. 
821;  Bucklin  v.  United  States,  159  U.  S.  681,  16  S.  Ct.  182,  40  L.  ed. 
304. 


549  Supreme  Court.  Art.  Ill,  §  2,  CI.  2 

The  jurisdiction  of  the  supreme  court  to  issue  the  prerogative 
writs  is  limited  to  those  cases  where  they  are  necessary  to  the 
exercise  of  jurisdiction  already  acquired.66  The  cases  wherein 
it  can  issue  the  writs  in  aid  of  its  original  jurisdiction  are  very 
limited  under  this  clause.67  Mandamus  may  issue  to  inferior 
federal  courts,  but  only  in  such  cases  as  involve  the  exercise  of 
the  supreme  court's  appellate  jurisdiction.68 

The  same  rule  applies  to  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus.69  The 
writ  may  issue  to  examine  into  the  cause  of  a  commitment  by 
an  inferior  federal  court.70  Where,  however,  the  court  has  no 
appellate  power  to  review  the  proceedings  of  a  court,  that  power 
cannot  be  usurped  by  means  of  habeas  corpus.71  So  the  writ 
cannot  be  issued  to  review  the  proceeedings  of  a  court-martial 
acting  within  its  jurisdiction.72  Nor  will  certiorari  issue  to 
review  the  proceedings  of  a  court-martial  or  a  military  com- 
mission.73   In  such  cases  it  is  only  where  the  tribunal  acted  en- 

66  Marbury  v.  Madison,  1  Cr.  173,  2  L.  ed.  60;  California  v.  South- 
ern Pacific  Co.,  157  U.  S.  261,  15  S.  Ct.  604,  39  L.  ed.  683. 

67  Virginia  v.  Eives,  100  U.  S.  327,  25  L.  ed.  667;  Ex  parte  Hung 
Hang,  108  TJ.  S.  552,  2  S.  Ct.  863,  27  L.  ed.  811. 

68  Marbury  v.  Madison,  1  Cr.  173,  2  L.  ed.  60;  Ex  parte  Crane, 
5  Pet.  200,  8  L.  ed.  92;  Ex  parte  Newman,  14  Wall.  165,  20  L.  ed. 
877. 

69  Ex  parte  Bollman,  4  Cr.  100,  2  L.  ed.  554;  Ex  parte  Watkins, 
7  Pet.  572,  8  L.  ed.  786;  In  re  Metzger,  5  How.  191,  12  L.  ed.  104; 
In  re  Kaine,  14  How.  119,  14  L.  ed.  345;  Ex  parte  Wells,  18  How. 
317,  15'  L.  ed.  421;  In  re  Yerger,  8  Wall.  97,  19  L.  ed.  332;  Ex  parte 
Clarke,  100  U.  S.  408,  25  L.  ed.  715. 

70  Ex  parte  Bollman,  4  Cr.  101,  2  L.  ed.  554;  Ex  parte  Watkins,  7 
Pet.  572,  8  L.  ed.  786;  In  re  Kaine,  14  How.  146,  14  L.  ed.  345;  Ex 
parte  Milligan,  4  Wall.  110,  18  L.  ed.  281;  Ex  parte  McCardle,  6  Wall. 
324,  18  L.  ed.   816. 

71  Ex  parte  Watkins,  3  Pet.  207,  7  L.  ed.  650;  Ex  parte  Milburn, 
9  Pet.  704,  9  L.  ed.  280;  Ex  parte  Wilson,  114  U.  S.  421,  5  S.  Ct.  935, 
29  L.  ed.  89;  In  re  Lennon,  150  U.  S.  400,  14  S.  Ct.  123,  37  L.  ed. 
1120. 

72  Ex  parte  Mason,  105  TJ.  S.  697,  26  L.  ed.  1213;  McClaughry  v. 
Deming,  186  U.  S.  69,  22  S.  Ct.  786,  46  L.  ed.  1049. 

73  Ex  parte  Vallandigham,  1  Wall.  251,  17  L.  ed.  539;  In  re  Vidal, 
179  TJ.  S.  127,  21  S.  Ct.  48,  45  L.  ed.  118. 


Art.  Ill,  §  2,  CI.  2         Supreme  Court.  550 

tirely  without  jurisdiction  that  relief  will  be  granted  by  habeas 
corpus.74 

The  repeal  of  an  act  authorizing  appeal  in  habeas  corpus 
cases  does  not  affect  jurisdiction  antecedently  exercised.75 

The  review  of  cases  in  the  supreme  court  is  regulated  solely 
by  act  of  Congress  and  not  by  state  law,76  and  a  compact  be- 
tween two  states  cannot  deprive  Congress  of  any  of  its  power 
in  this  respect77 

74  Ex  parte  Parks,  93  U.  S.  18,  23  L.  ed.  787. 

75  Ex  parte  McCardle,  7  Wall.  506,  19  L.  ed,  264. 

78  Boogher  v.  New  York  Life  Ins.  Co.,  103  U.  S.  95,  26  L.  ed.  310; 
Belden  v.  Chase.  150  U.  S.  691,  14  S.  Ct.  264,  37  L.  ed.  1218. 
77  Wilson  v.  Mason,  1  Cr.  91,  2  L.  ed.  29. 


551  Trials  for  Crimes.        Art.  Ill,  §  2,  CL  3 

3.  The  trial  of  all  crimes,  except  in  cases  of  im- 
peachment, shall  be  by  jury;  and  such  trial  shall  be 
held  in  the  State  where  the  said  crimes  shall  have 
been  committed;  but;  when  not  committed  within  any 
State,  the  trial  shall  be  at  such  place  or  places  as  the 
Congress  may  by  law  have  directed. 

Trial  by  Jury.* 

This  clause  applies  only  to  criminal  proceeedings  in  the  fed- 
eral courts  and  does  not  govern  trials  in  state  courts.1  The 
"trial"  here  referred  to  is  the  examination  of  the  accused  before 
a  competent  tribunal,  according  to  the  law  of  the  land;2  it  is 
the  hearing  and  deciding  on  a  criminal  charge,  and  can  take 
place  only  after  that  charge  has  been  legally  made.3  Congress 
must  first  make  an  act  a  crime,  affix  the  penalty  and  declare 
the  court  having  jurisdiction.4 

The  "jury"  referred  to  in  the  constitution  is  a  jury  con- 
stituted, as  it  was  at  common  law,  of  twelve  persons;5  and 
"trial  by  jury"  is  a  trial  by  such  a  jury  in  the  presence  and 
under  the  superintendence  of  a  judge  empowered  to  instruct 
them  upon  the  law  and  advise  them  upon  the  facts.6  Any  law 
dispensing  with  the  requisites  to  constitute  a  jury  is  uncon- 
stitutional.7 

1  Eilenhecker  v.  Plymouth  County,  134  U.  S.  35,  10  S.  Ct.  424,  33 
L.  ed.  801;  Murphy  v.  People,  2  Cow.  815. 

2  United  States  v.  Curtis,  4  Mason,  232,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,905. 

3  United  States  v.  Patterson,  150  U.  S.  68,  14  S.  Ct.  20,  37  L.  ed, 
999. 

4  United  States  v.  Hudson,  7  Cr.  33,  3  L.  ed.  259;  United  Statea 
v.  Coolidge,  1  Wheat.  416,  4  L.  ed.  124;  United  States  v.  Britton, 
108  U.  S.  206,  2  S.  Ct.  535,  27  L.  ed.  698;  United  States  v.  Eaton, 
144  U.  S.  687,  12  S.  Ct.  767,  36  L.  ed.  591. 

5  Thompson  v.  Utah,  170  U.  S.  349,  18  S.  Ct.  620,  42  L.  ed.  1061; 
Maxwell  v.  Dow,  176  U.  S.  587,  20  S.  Ct.  448,  44  L.  ed.  597. 

o  Capital  Traction  Co.  v.  Hof,  174  U.  S.  13-16,  19  S.  Ct.  580,  43  L. 
ed    873. 

7  Work  v.  State,  2  Ohio  St.  296,  59  Am.  Dec.  671;  State  v.  Cox, 
3  Eng.  436. 


*  See,  also,  amendment  VI,  post. 


Art.  Ill,  §  2,  CI.  3        Trials   foe   Crimes.  552 

While  this  clause  provides  for  trial  by  jury  in  criminal  cases 
according  to  settled  common-law  rules,  the  Sixth  Amendment 
declares  what  those  rules  are,  and  the  two  provisions  are  not 
conflicting.8  As  soon  as  it  judicially  appears  of  record  that  a 
person  has  pleaded  "not  guilty,"  an  issue  has  arisen  which  the 
courts  are  bound  to  direct  to  be  tried  by  a  jury;9  but  when  the 
question  arises  whether  the  case  is  one  wherein  the  accused  is 
entitled  to  a  jury,  recourse  must  be  had  to  the  principles  of  the 
common  law  which  are  determinative  of  that  question.10  Ex- 
cept as  to  those  petty  offenses  which  by  common  law  may  be 
summarily  tried,  the  guaranty  of  a  jury  accrues  to  an  accused 
person  the  moment  he  is  put  on  trial.11  So  a  statute  which 
provides  that  a  person  may  be  tried  by  the  court  on  a  charge  of 
libel  is  void,  although  it  gives  him  a  right  of  appeal  to  a  court 
where  trial  may  be  had  by  jury.12  A  trial  upon  a  charge  of 
conducting  a  market  in  a  forbidden  district  is  not  one  requiring 
a  jury;13  nor  is  a  proceeding  to  annul  the  license  of  a  pilot 
for  neglect  of  duty;14  nor  a  proceeding  to  strike  an  attorney1 
from  the  rolls  for  criminal  offenses.15  An  act  authorizing  the 
summary  destruction  of  unlawful  fishing  nets  is  valid  under 
this  clause;16  but  a  statute  providing  for  the  confiscation  of  the 
property  of  a  person  engaged  in  rebellion,  in  any  district  in 
which  property  may  be  found,  is  void.17 

A  citizen  in  civil  life  in  no  wise  connected  with  the  military 
service  cannot  be  tried  by  a  military  commission  so  long  as  the 
courts  are  open  to  hear  criminal  accusations  and  redress  griev- 
ances.18 

8  Callan  v.  Wilson,  127  U.  S.  549,  8  S.  Ct.  1301,  32  L.  ed.  223. 

9  United  States  v.  Gibert,  2  Sum.  19,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,204. 

10  Callan  v.  Wilson,  127  U.  S.  549,  8  S.  Ct.  1301,  32  L.  ed.  223. 
U   Callan  v.  Wilson,  127  U.  S.  557,  8  S.  Ct.  1301,  32  L.  ed.  223. 

12  Ex  parte  Dana,  7  Ben.  1,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3554.  And  see  Callan  v. 
Wilson,  127  IT.  S.  557,  8  S.  Ct.  1301,  32  L.  ed.  223. 

13  Natal  v.  Louisiana,  139  U.  S.  624,  11  S.  Ct.  637,  35  L.  ed.  283. 

14  Low    v.  Commissioners,  E.  M.  Charlt.  302. 

15  Ex  parte  Wall,  107  U.  S.  265,  2  S.  Ct.  569,  27  L.  ed.  552. 

16  Lawton  v.  Steele,  152  U.  S.  142,  14  S.  Ct.  503,  38  L.  ed.  385. 

17  Norris  v.  Doniphan,  4  Met.    (Ky.)    346. 

18  Ex  parte  Milligan,  4  Wall.  123,  18  L.  ed.  281. 


553  Trials   foe   Crimes.        Art.  Ill,  §  2,  CI.  3 

The  constitutional  guaranty  of  a  jury  trial  applies  to  the 
people  of  the  territories,19  and  to  the  District  of  Columbia.20 
Where,  on  a  prosecution  by  information,  the  defendant  refuses 
to  plead  and  the  court  enters  a  plea,  an  issue  is  framed  which 
must  be  tried  by  a  jury.21 

Place  of  Trial. 


The  provision  as  to  place  of  trial  has  reference  only  to  trials 
in  the  federal  courts.22  Congress  has  the  sole  power  to  pre- 
scribe the  place  of  trial  for  offenses  against  federal  laws  not 
committed  within  any  state;23  such  an  offense  is  not  local  and 
may  be  tried  at  such  place  as  Congress  may  designate.24  The 
place  of  trial  may  be  directed  by  Congress  after  the  offense  has 
been  committed  and  before  proceedings  have  been  commenced.25 

Congress  has  power  to  enact  laws  for  the  arrest,  commitment 
and  custody  of  persons  committing  offenses  against  the  United 
States,  and  such  persons  are  in  the  exclusive  custody  of  the 
United  States,  and  not  subject  to  state  process  or  warrant.26 
An  offense  committed  on  the  high  seas  is  contemplated  by  this 
clause,27  and  an  act  of  Congress  providing  for  the  punishment 
of  murder  on  the  high  seas  or  in  any  bay,  etc.,  out  of  the  jur- 
isdiction of  any  state  means  that  the  bay,  etc.,  must  be  out  of 
the  jurisdiction,  and  not  the  offense  itself.28 

The  jurisdiction  of  a  court  is  not  affected  by  the  manner  in 
which  an  accused  person  is  brought  before  it.29     Under  the 

19  Thompson  v.  Utah,  170  U.  S.  346,  18  S.  Ct.  620,  42  L.  ed.  1061. 

20  Callan  v.  Wilson,  127  TJ.  S.  550,  8  S.  Ct.  1301,  32  L.  ed.  223. 

21  United  States  v.  Barger,  19  Blatchf.  250,  7  Fed.  193. 

22  Nashville  etc.  By.  Co.  v.  Alabama,  128  U.  S.  101,  9  S.  Ct.  23, 
32  L.  ed.  352. 

23  Jones  v.  United  States,  137  U.  S.  211,  11  S.  Ct.  80,  34  L.  ed.  691. 

24  United  States  v.  Dawson,  15  How.  488,  14  L.  ed.  775;  United 
States  v.  Jaekalow,  1  Black,  486,  17  L.  ed.  225. 

25  Cook  v.  United  States,  138  U.  S.  182,  11  S.  Ct.  268,  34  L.  ed.  906; 
Post  v.  United  States,  161  U.  S.  587,  16  S.  Ct.  611,  40  L.  ed.  816, 

26  Logan  v.  United  States,  144  U.  S.  264,  12  S.  Ct.  617,  36  L.  ed. 
429. 

27  United  States  v.  Jaekalow,  1  Black',  487,  17  L.  ed.  225. 

28  United  States  v.  Bevans,  3  Wheat.  390,  4  L.  ed.  404. 

23  Mahon  v.  Justice,  127  U.  S.  708,  8  S.  Ct.  1204,  32  L.  ed.  283. 


Art.  Ill,  §  2,  CI.  3        Trials   tor   Crimes.  554 

act  of  March  3,  1825.  a  person  is  triable  for  an  offense  on  the 
high  seas  in  the  district  into  which  he  is  brought,30  and  for 
this  purpose  the  district  in  which  he  is  delivered  to  the  marshal 
is  the  district  into  which  he  is  brought,  although  he  is  first  de- 
livered to  state  officers  in  another  district  for  safekeeping.31  A 
bank  president  fraudulently  procuring  the  acceptance  in  another 
state  of  a  check  against  funds  deposited  there  is  triable  in  that 
state.32 

30  Jones  v.  United  States,  137  U.  S.  211,  11  S.  Ct.  80,  34  L.  ed. 
691. 

31  United  States  v.  Arwo,  19  Wall.  490,  22  L.  ed.  67. 

82  Putnam  v.  United  States,  162  U.  S.  710,  16  S.  Ct.  923,  40  L. 
ed.  1118. 


555  Treason.  Art.  Ill,  §  3,  CI.  1 


SECTION  3. 


TREASON. 


1.  Definition  and  evidence  of. 

2.  Punishment  of. 

1.  Treason  against  the  United  States  shall  consist 
only  in  levying  war  against  them,  or  in  adhering  to 
their  enemies,  giving  them  aid  and  comfort.  No  per- 
son shall  be  convicted  of  treason  unless  on  the  testi- 
mony of  two  witnesses  to  the  same  overt  act,  or  on 
confession  in  open  court. 

Treason,  What  is. 

Treason  is  a  breach  of  allegiance.1  The  elements  which  con- 
stitute treason  under  this  clause  are:  a  combination  of  con- 
spiracy by  which  several  are  united  in  one  common  purpose;2 
the  purpose  must  be  to  prevent  the  execution  of  some  public 
law,3  and  actual  force  must  be  employed  by  such  combination4 
to  overthrow  the  government  or  coerce  its  conduct.5  So  war 
must  actually  be  levied.5*  The  breach  of  allegiance  may  be 
either  perpetual  or  temporary.6     Where  the  object  of  an  insur- 

1  United  States  v.  Wiltberger,  5  Wheat*  97,  5  L.  ed.  37. 

2  Ex  parte  Bollman,  4  Cr.  126,  2  L.  ed.  554;  Druecker  v.  Salomon, 
21  Wis.  621. 

3  Druecker  v.  Salomon.  21  Wis.  621. 

4  Ex  parte  Burr,  9  Wheat.  529,  6  L.  ed.  152;  United  States  v. 
Mitchell,  2  Dall.  348,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,788;  United  States  v.  Hanway, 

Wall.  Jr.  139,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,299;  United  States  v.  Hoxie.  1 
Paine,  265,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,407;  United  States  v.  Fries,  2  Whart.  St. 
Tr.  482,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,170. 

5  United  States  v.  Greathouse,  2  Abb.  U.  S.  364,  4  Saw.  457,  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  15,254. 

5a  Ex  parte  Bollman,  4  Cr.  126,  2  L.  ed.  554. 

6  United  States  v.  Wiltberger,  5  Wheat.  76,  5  L.  ed.  37. 


Art.  Ill,  §  3,  CI.  1  Treason.  556 

rection  of  armed  men  is  to  suppress  the  excise  offices  and  to 
prevent  by  force  and  intimidation  the  execution  of  an  act  of 
Congress,  the  participants  therein  are  guilty  of  treason,7 

To  complete  the  crime  of  levying  war  against  the  United 
States  there  must  be  an  actual  assemblage  of  men  for  the  pur- 
pose of  executing  a  treasonable  design.8  The  mere  enlistment 
of  men  to  serve  against  the  government  is  insufficient;  but  the 
meeting  of  particular  bodies  of  men  and  their  marching  from 
places  of  partial  to  places  of  general  rendezvous.9 

The  term  "levying  war"  is  used  in  the  sense  in  which  it  was 
understood  to  have  been  used  in  25  Edward  III,  from  which 
it  was  taken,  and  it  means  to  raise,  create,  make,  or  carry  on 
war.10  When  war  has  been  levied,  all  who  aid  in  its  prosecu- 
tion by  performing  any  part,  however  minute,  or  however  re- 
mote from  the  scene  of  action,  are  traitors.11  Although  no  one 
can  be  convicted  of  treason  who  was  not  present  when  war  was 
levied,12  yet  the  crime  may  be  committed  by  those  not  per- 
sonally present,  if  they  are  leagued  with  the  conspirators  and 
perform  any  part;13  but  the  overt  act  and  the  intention  must 
concur  to  constitute  the  crime.14 

The  occupation  of  a  fortress  by  men  in  military  array  to 
detain  it  constitutes  levying  war.15  The  offense  is  complete 
when  it  is  directed  to  the  overthrow  of  the  government  of  por- 

7  United  States  v.  Mitchell,  2  Dall.  348,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,783; 
United  States  v.  Vigol,  2  Dall.  346,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,621. 

8  Ex  parte  Bollman,  4  Cr.  127,  2  L.  ed.  554;  United  States  v.  Great- 
house,  2  Abb.  U.  S.  364,  4  Saw.  457,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,254. 

9  Ex  parte  Bollman,  4  Cr.  134,  2  L.  ed.  554. 

10  United  States  v.  Burr,  4  Cr.  470,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,693. 

li  Ex  parte  Bollman,  4  Cr.  75,  2  L.  ed.  554;  United  States  v.  Great- 
house,  2  Abb.  U.  S.  364,  4  Saw.  457,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,254. 

12  United  States  v.  Burr,  4  Cranch,  469,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,693; 
United  States  v.  Wiltberger,  5  Wheat.  76,  5  L.  ed.  37. 

13  In  re  Bollman,  4  Cr.  75,  2  L.  ed.  554;  Druecker  v.  Salomon,  21 
Wis.  621. 

14  United  States  v.  Fries,  3  Dall.  515,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,170;  Unite! 
States  v.  Burr,  4  Cr.  469,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,693;  United  States  v. 
Hodges,  2  Wheel.  C.  C.  477,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,374. 

15  United  States  v.  Greiner,  4  Phila.  396,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,262. 


55?  Treason.      .  Art.  Ill,  §  3,  CI.  1 

tions  of  the  country  only;16  hence  to  revolutionize  hy  force  the 
government  of  any  territory  of  the  United  States  would  con- 
stitute levying  war.17 

The  crime  of  treason  is  not  to  he  extended  by  construction 
beyond  the  terms  of  this  clause.18  Conspiracy  to  levy  war  and 
the  actual  levying  of  war  are  two  distinct  offenses.19  So  re- 
sistance to  the  execution  of  a  law  must  be  of  a  political  and  not 
of  a  private  nature.20  An  alien  domiciled  in  the  United  States 
is  bound  by  its  law,  owes  it  allegiance  and  can  claim  no  im- 
munity from  statutes  punishing  treason.21 

Rebels,  being  citizens,  are  not  "enemies"  under  this  clause.22 
A  de  facto  government  exists  in  the  highest  degree  when  the 
de  jure  government  has  been  entirely  displaced  by  it,  and  such 
a  government  is  not  treason.23  Furnishing  saltpeter  by  par- 
ties who  knew  that  it  was  to  be  used  in  manufacturing  powder 
for  the  enemy  constitutes  "giving  aid  and  comfort/'24  and  a 
person  who  sells  goods  to  an  agent  of  the  enemy  is  guilty  of 
treason  or  a  misprision  thereof.25  The  delivery  of  a  prisoner  to 
the  enemy  is  treason.26     A  person  who,  being  with  a  squadron, 

16  United  States  v.  Greathouse,  2  Abb.  TJ.  S.  364,  4  Saw.  459,  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  15,254. 

17  Ex  parte  Bollman,  4  Cr.  75,  2  L.  ed.  554. 

18  Ex  parte  Bollman,  4  Cr.  75,  2  L.  ed.  554. 

19  Ex  parte  Bollman,  4  Cr.  75,  2  L.  ed.  554;  United  States  v. 
Mitchell,  2  Dall.  348,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,788. 

20  United  States  v.  Fries,  3  Dall.  515,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,170;  United 
States  v.  Hanway,  2  Wall.  Jr.  139,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,299;  United  States 
v.  Hoxie,  1  Paine,  265,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,407. 

21  Hanauer  v.  Doane,  12  Wall.  342,  20  L.  ed.  439;  Carlisle  v.  United 
States,  IS  Wall.  147,  21  U  ed.  426;  Radich  v.  Hutchins,  95  U.  S.  211, 
24  L.  ed.  409. 

22  United  States  v.  Greathouse,  2  Abb.  U.  S.  364,  4  Saw.  457,  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  15,254;  United  Spates  v.  Cheneweth,  4  West.  L.  Mo.  165,  6 
McLean,  139,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,792. 

23  Thorington  v.  Smith,  8  Wall.  8,  19  L.  ed.  361. 

24  Carlisle  v.  United  States,  16  Wall.  150,  21  L.  ed.  426. 

25  Hanauer  v.  Doane,  12  Wall.  347,  20  L.  ed.  439. 

26  United)  States  v.  Hodges,  2  Wheel.  C.  C.  477,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
15,374. 


Art.  Ill,  §  3,  CI.  1  Treason.  558 

comes  peaceably  ashore  to  procure  provisions,  does  not  commit 
an  overt  act  within  this  clause.27  The  only  compulsion  which 
will  excuse  marching  with  rebels  is  force  on  the  person  and 
present  fear  of  death.28  While  mere  attempts  to  enlist  men  in 
the  enemy's  service  is  not  treason,  yet  it  may  be  proved  to  show, 
.quo  animo,  that  the  accused  had  joined  the  enemy,  and  to 
show  aid  to  the  enemy.29 

Proof  of  Treason. 

The  requirement  of  two  witnesses  refers  to  the  proof  on  the 
trial  and  not  to  proceedings  before  the  grand  jury,  or  to  pre- 
liminary investigations.30  While  a  confession  proved  by  two 
witnesses  is  not  sufficient  to  convict,  evidence  thereof  is  admis- 
sible in  corroboration  of  other  evidence.31 

27  United  States  v.  Pryor,  3  Wash.  C.  C.  234,  Ted.  Cas.  No.  16,09(3. 

28  United  States  v.  Hodges,  2  Wheel.  C.  C.  477,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,374; 
United  States  v.  Greiner,  4  Phila.  396,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,262. 

29  Eespubliea  v.  Roberts,  1  Dall.  39. 

30  United  States  v.  Hanway,  2  Wall.  Jr.  138,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,299; 
United  States  v.  Burr,  4  Cr.  469,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,693;  United  States 
v.  Greiner,  4  Phila.  396,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,262.  But  see  United  Status 
v.  Fries,  3  Dall.  515,  2  Whart.  St.  Tr.  480,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,170. 

31  United  States  v.  Greathouse,  2  Abb.  U.  S.  364,  4  Saw.  457,  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  15,254. 


559  Treason.  Art.  Ill,  §  3,  CI.  2 

2.  The  Congress  shall  have  power  to  declare  the 
punishment  of  treason,  but  no  attainder  of  treason 
shall  work  corruption  of  blood,  or  forfeiture  except 
during  the  life  of  the  person  attainted. 

Punishment  of  Treason. 

The  power  to  declare  the  punishment  for  treason  is  exclusively 
in  CongTess,1  but  in  those  cases  in  which  this  exclusive  right  of 
legislation  exists  it  rests  with  Congress  to  determine  whether 
the  general  government  shall  exercise  its  power  to  punish  ex- 
clusively or  give  to  the  states  a  concurrent  power.2 

The  prohibition  against  corruption  of  blood  or  forfeiture 
beyond  the  life  of  the  person  attainted  was  inserted  for  the 
benefit  of  the  children  and  heirs  of  such  person.3  Only  a  life 
estate  terminating  with  the  death  of  the  offender  could  be  sold 
under  the  confiscation  act  of  1862,4  and  children  of  the  per- 
son whose  estate  was  condemned  under  that  act  at  his  death  take 
the  fee-simple,  by  descent  as  his  heirs,  and  do  not  derive  any 
title  from  the  United  States.5  The  confiscation  act  was  an 
exercise  of  the  war  power,  and  not  a  criminal  proceeding.6 

A  full  pardon  by  the  President  of  all  offenses  committed  by 
the  owner  of  property  confiscated  relieves  the  owner  from  for- 
feiture so  far  as  any  right  of  the  government  is  concerned;7 

1  People  v.  Lynch,  11  Johns.  553. 

2  Houston  v.  Moore,  5  Wheat.  34,  5  L.  eel.  19. 

3  Wallach  v.  Van  Eiswick,  92  U.  S.  213,  23  L.  ed.  473;  Pike  v. 
Wassell,  94  U.  S.  714,  24  L.  ed.  307;  New  York  Guaranty  etc.  Co.  v. 
Taeoma  Ey.  etc.  Co.,  93  Fed.  56. 

4  Bigelow  v.  Forrest,  9  Wall.  350,  19  L.  ed.  692;  Day  v.  Micou,  IS 
Wall.  160,  21  L.  ed.  860;  Avegno  v.  Schmidt,  113  U.  S.  293,  5  S.  Ct. 
487,  28  L.  ed.  976;  Shields  v.  Schiff,  124  U.  S.  356,  8  S.  Ct.  510,  31 
L.  ed.  445. 

5  Day  v.  Micou,  18  Wall.  156,  21  L.  ed.  860;  Avegno  v.  Schmidt; 
113  U.  S.  293,  5  S.  Ct.  4SV,  28  L.  ed.  976;  Shields  v.  Schiff,  124  U.  S. 
359,  8  S.  Ct.  510,  31  L.  ed.  445;  Illinois  Central  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Bosworth, 
133  U.  S.  101,  10  S.  Ct.  231,  33  L.  ed.  550. 

6  Miller  v.  United  States,  11  Wall.  305,  20  L.  ed.  135. 

7  Armstrong's  Foundry,  6  Wall.  769,  18  L.  ed.  882. 


Art.  Ill,  §  3,  CI.  2  Treason.  5G0 

but  a  pardon  cannot  operate  to  devest  the  interest  acquired  by 
third  persons  during  the  lifetime  of  the  person  attainted.8 

8  Wallach  v.  Van  Eiswick,  92  U.  S.  214,  23  L.  ed.  473;  Semmes 
v.  United  States,  91  U.  S.  21,  23  L.  ed.  193;  Knote  v.  United  States, 
95  U.  S.  149,  24  L.  ed.  442;  Illinois  Cent.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Bosworth,  133 
U.  S.  103,  10  S.  Ct.  231,  33  L.  ed.  550. 


561  State  Records.  Art.  IV,  §  1 


ARTICLE  IV. 

STATE    EIGHTS. 

SECTION  1. 

ACTS     AND      OFFICIAL    RECORDS      OF     STATES,      AUTHENTICATION 
AND  EFFECT  OF. 

Full  faith  and  credit  shall  be  given  in  each  State  to 
the  public  acts,  records,  and  judicial  proceedings  of 
every  other  State.  And  the  Congress  may  by  general 
laws  prescribe  the  manner  in  which  such  acts,  records, 
and  proceedings  shall  be  proved,  and  the  effect  there- 
of. 

Scope  of  Clause. 

This  clause  declares  the  attributes  and  qualities  which  judicial 
proceedings  and  records  of  one  state  shall  have  when  offered  in 
evidence  in  the  courts  of  another,1  and  it  implies  that  they  shall 
be  given  the  same  effect  in  the  courts  of  another  state  as  they 
have  by  law  and  usage  at  home.2  But  this  provision,  and  the 
laws  giving  it  effect,  establish  a  rule  of  evidence,  and  not  of 
jurisdiction;3  they  do  not  operate  to  make  records  and  judg- 

1  McElmoyle  v.  Cohen,  13  Pet.  324,  10  L.  ed.  177;  Lynde  v.  Co- 
lumbus etc.  By.  Co.,  57  Fed.  996;  Alkire  Grocery  Co.  v.  Kichesin,  91 
Fed.  S3;  Lucas  v.  Copeland,  2  Stew.  153;  Wyman  v.  Campbell,  6  Port. 
237,  31  Am.  Dec.  686;  Bank  of  North  America  v.  Wheeler,  28  Conn. 
439,  73  Am.  Dec.  684;  Joice  v.  Scales,  18  Ga.  725;  Tucker  v.  Harris, 
13  Ga.  10,  58  Am.  Dec.  493;  Morris  v.  Burgess,  116  N.  C.  42,  21  S.  E. 
28;  Shelton  v.  Johnson,  4  Sneed,  672,  70  Am.  Dec.  265;  Sanborn  v. 
Perry,  86  Wis.  366,  56  N.  W.  399. 

2  Chicago  etc.  R.  E.  Co.  v.  Wiggins  Ferry  Co.,  119  U.  S.  622,  7  S. 
Ct.  398,  30  L.  ed.  519. 

3  Wisconsin  v.  Pelican  Ins.  Co.,  127  U.  S.  292,  8  S.  Ct.  370,  32  L. 
ed.  239;  Huntington  v.  Attrill,  146  U.  S.  671,  13  S.  Ct.  229,  36  L. 
ed.  1123;  Wood  v.  Augustins,  70  Vt.  640,  41  Atl.  584. 

Notes  on  Constitution — 36 


Art.  IV,  §  1  State  Records.  562 

ments  domestic  for  all  purposes,  but  only  to  give  them  a  gen- 
eral validity  and  credit  as  evidence.4 

This  clause  does  not  require  courts  to  recognize  as  valid  judg- 
ments of  other  states  rendered  without'  jurisdiction,  or  which 
are  irresponsive  to  the  complaint  and  rendered  in  the  defend- 
ant's absence;5  it  applies  to  records  and  proceedings  of  courts 
only  so  far  as  the  courts  have  jurisdiction,6  and  that  jurisdic- 
tion may  be  the  subject  of  inquiry  whenever  a  foreign  judgment 
is  relied  upon.7  And  the  record  is  always  subject  to  contra- 
diction as  to  facts  necessary  to  give  jurisdiction.8  So  the  rec- 
ord showing  of  service  of  process  may  be  impeached,9  and  con- 
structive service  may  be  shown  to  have  been  insufficient,10,  and 
the  recital  of  the  death  of  a  person,  upon  whose  estate  letters 
of  administration  have  been  granted,  may  be  contradicted.11 
It  may  be  shown  that  a  defendant  against  whom  a  judgment 
was  rendered  was  a  nonresident,  and  that  he  was  not  served 
with  process  and  did  not  voluntarily  appear,12  and  the  findings 

4  Cole  v.  Cunningham,  133  U.  S.  112,  10  S.  Ct.  269,  33  L.  ed.  533. 

5  Reynolds  v.  Stockton,  140  U.  S.  264,  11  S.  Ct.  773,  35  L.  ed.  46*. 

6  Board  of  Public  Works  v.  Columbia  College,  17  Wall.  528,  21 
L.  ed.  687;  Cole  v.  Cunningham,  133  U.  S.  112,  10  S.  Ct.  269,  33 
L.  ed.  538. 

7  Thompson  v.  Whitman,  18  Wall.  461,  21  L.  ed.  897;  Simmons  v. 
Saul,  138  U.  S.  448,  11  S.  Ct.  369,  34  L.  ed.  1054;  Thormann  v.  Frame, 
176  tT.  S.  356,  20  S.  Ot.  446,  44  L.  ed.  500. 

8  Thompson  v.  Whitman,  18  Wall.  457,  21  L.  ed.  897;  Owens  v. 
Henry,  161  U.  S.  646,  16  S.  Ct.  694,  40  L.  ed.  837;  Cooper  v.  Newell, 
173  U.  S.  566,  19  S.  Ct.  510,  43  L.  ed.  808;  Hood  v.  State,  56  Ind. 
263,  26  Am.  Rep.  21;  Wilson  v.  Hawthorne,  14  Colo.  533,  20  Am. 
St.  Rep.  292,  24  Pac.  549;  Neff  v.  Beauchamp,  74  Iowa,  94,  36  N.  W. 
906. 

9  Knowles  v.  Gaslight  Co.,  19  Wall.  61,  22  L.  ed.  70;  Downs  v. 
Allen,  23  Blatchf.  59,  22  Fed.  808;  Rose  v.  Northwest  Ins.  Co.,  67 
Fed.  439;  Pennywit  v.  Foote,  27  Ohio  St.  600,  2  Am.  Rep.  340;  Bowler 
v.  Huston,  30  Gratt.  275,  32  Am.  Rep.  678. 

10  Pennoyer  v.  Neff,  95  U.  S.  730,  24  L.  ed.  565,  affirming  3  Saw. 
301,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,083. 

11  Scott  v.  McNeal,  154  U.  S.  47,  14  S.  Ct.  1113,  38  L.  ed.  896. 

12  D'Arcy  v.  Ketchum,  11  How.  175,  13  L.  ed.  647;  Grover  etc.  Co. 
v.  Radeliffe,  137  U.  S.  295,  11  S.  Ct.  94,  34  L.  ed.  670;  Wilson  v. 
Seligmsn,  144  U.  S.  45,  12  S.  Ct.  542,  36  L.  ed.  338;  Goldey  v.  Morn- 
ing News,  156  U.  S.  521,  15  S.  Ct.  560,  39  L.  ed.  517. 


563  State  Eecords.  Art.  IV,  §  1 

as  to  residence  are  not  conclusive  in  a  collateral  action.13  If 
a  judgment  is  properly  authenticated  it  proves  itself  when 
offered  in  the  courts  of  another  state.14 

"Records"  are  all  acts,  legislative,  executive,  judicial  and 
ministerial,  which  constitute  the  public  records  of  a  state.15 
The  object  of  the  clause  is  to  declare  that  full  faith  and  credit 
shall  be  given  to  such,  the  manner  of  authenticating  the  same, 
and  their  effect  when  properly  authenticated,16  and  to  prevent 
judgments  from  being  disregarded  in  other  states,  when  a  proper 
tribunal  having  jurisdiction  has  rendered  them.17  Legislative 
acts  are  to  be  authenticated  by  the  seal  of  the  state,18  which 
imports  absolute  verity.19  The  constitution  has  effected  no 
change  in  the  nature  of  judgments;20  it  merely  places  judg- 
ments rendered  in  sister  states  in  a  different  category  from 
strictly  foreign  judgments,  as  to  their  force  and  effect.21  A 
judgment  in  any  state  is,  as  to  that  state,  to  be  regarded  as  a 
domestic  judgment.21*  The  clause  relates  only  to  judgments 
in  civil  actions  and  not  to  judgments  in  criminal  prosecutions.22 
It  does  not  embrace  an  alleged  discrepancy  between  two  de- 
crees of  a  state  court  in  the  same  case.23 

This  clause  relates  only  to  the  validity  and  force  of  judg- 
ments rendered  in  one  state  when  proved  in  another;24  it  does 

13  Gregory  v.  Gregory,  78  Me.  190,  57  Am.  Eep.  793,  3  Atl.  281. 

14  Hanley  v.   Donoghue,  116  U.   S.  3,  6  S.   <0t.   242,  29  L.  ed.  535. 

15  White  v.  Burnley,  20  How.  250,  15  L.  ed.  886;  McGrew  v.  Wat- 
rous,  16  Tex.  509;  Chase  v.  Caryl,  57  N.  J.  L.  558,  31  Atl.  1029. 

16  Green  v.  Sarmiento,  1  Pet.  C.  C.  74,  3  Wash.  C.  C.  17,  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  5760. 

17  People  v.  Dawell,  25  Mich.  247,  12  Am.  Pep.  260. 

is  United  States  v.  Johns,  4  Dall.  412,  1  Wash.  C.  C.  363,  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  15,481;  Craig  v.  Brown,  1  Pet.  C.  C.  354,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3328. 

19  United  States  v.  Johns,  4  Dall.  416,  1  Wash.  C.  C.  363,  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  15,481;  United  States  v.  Amedy,  11  Wheat.  407,  6  L.  ed.  502. 

20  McElmoyle  v.  Cohen,  13  Pet.  312,  10  L.  ed.  177. 

21  Oldens  v.  Hallet,  3  N.  J.  L.  466;  Gibbons  v.  Livingston,  6  N. 
J.  L.  236. 

21  a  Baxley  v.  Dinah,  27  Pa.  St.  247. 

22  Commonwealth  v.  Green,  17  Mass.  514. 

23  Mitchell  v.  Lenox,  14  Pet.  49,  10  L.  ed.  349. 

24  Claflin  v.  McDermott,  12  Fed.  375. 


Art.  IV,  §  1  State  Records.  564 

not  impose  upon  the  states  the  duty  to  follow  the  decisions  of 
the  courts  of  another  state  construing  the  latter's  statutes.23 
A  state  law  providing  that  the  records  of  its  courts  shall  im- 
port absolute  verity  has  no  extraterritorial  force;26  nor  can  a 
statute  exempting  the  state  debt  from  taxation  operate  to  ex- 
empt any  portion  of  the  debt  held  in  another  state  from  taxation 
by  the  latter.27 

Effect  of  Judgments  Under  this  Provision. 


This  clause,  and  the  act  of  Congress  declaring  the  effect  of 
domestic  judgments,  do  not  require  that  they  shall  have  any 
greater  force  and  efficacy  in  other  courts  than  in  the  courts 
of  the  states  in  which  they  are  rendered,  but  only  such  faith 
and  credit  as,  by  law  or  usage,  they  have  there.28  It  operates 
merely  to  give  to  a  state  judgment  the  same  validity,  credit  and 
effect  in  every  other  state  that  it  has  in  the  state  where  it  is 
rendered.29     It  does  not  give  any  validity  to  a  void  decree.30 

It  is  only  when  the  jurisdiction  is  not  impeached  that  a 
judgment  is  entitled  to  full  faith  and  credit  in  another  state.31 

25  Wiggins  Ferry  Co.  v.  Chicago  etc.  Ky.  Co.,  3  McCrary,  609.  11 
Fed.  381;  Miller  v.  Miller,  18  Hun,  507. 

26  Thompson  v.  Whitman,  18  Wall.  468,  21  L.  ed.  897. 

27  Bonaparte  v.  Tax  Court,  104  U.  S.  592,  26  L.  ed.  845. 

28  Robertson  v.  Pickrell,  109  TJ.  S.  611,  3  S.  Ct.  407,  27  L.  ed.  1049; 
Frame  v.  Thurmann,  102  Wis.  670,  79  N.  W.  43. 

29  Mills  v.  Duryee,  7  Cr.  484,  3  L.  ed.  411;  Hampton  v.  McConnell, 
3  Wheat.  235,  4  L.  ed.  378;  Mayhew  v.  Thatcher,  6  Wheat.  129,  5  L. 
ed.  223;  Caldwell  v.  Carrington,  9  Pet.  101,  9  L.  ed.  60;  Bank  of  Ala- 
bama v.  Dalton,  9  How.  522,  13  L.  ed.  242;  Board  of  Public  Works 
v.  Columbia  College,  17  Wall.  529,  21  L.  ed.  687;  Insurance  Co.  v. 
Harris,  97  U.  S.  336,  24  L.  ed.  959;  Chicago  etc.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Sturm, 
174  U.  S.  718,  19  S.  Ct.  797,  43  L.  ed.  1144;  Hancock  National  Bank 
v.  Farnum,  176  U.  S.  644,  20  S.  Ct.  506,  44  L.  ed.  619;  Burnham  v. 
Webster,  1  Wood.  &  M.  175,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2179;  Westerwelt  v.  Lewis, 
2  McLean,  511,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,446;  Barnes  v.  Gibbs,  31  N.  J.  L. 
318,  86  Am.  Dec.  210;  Kingman  v.  Paulson,  126  Ind.  509,  22  Am.  St. 
Rep.  613,  26  N.  E.  393;   Suydam  v.  Barber,  18  N.  Y.  468. 

30  Siit a  v.  Wollfolk,  119  U.  S.  149,  5  S.  Ct.  1177,  29  L.  ed.  357; 
Carpenter  v.  Strange,  141  U.  S.  106,  11  S.  Ct.  960,  35  L.  ed.  640. 

31  Thompson  v.  Whitman,  18  Wall.  463,  21  L.  ed.  897;  Colt  v.  Colt, 
111  U.  S.  578,  4  S.  Ct.  558,  28  L.  ed.  520,  affirming  19  Blatchf.  466, 


565  State  Eecords.  Art.  IV,  §  1 

Generally  speaking,  if  a  decree  is  enforceable  in  the  state  where 
it  is  rendered  it  is  enforceable  in  any  other  state;32  but  the 
courts  of  one  state  are  not  bound  to  uphold,  on  grounds  of 
comity,  a  judgment  of  another  state,  invalid  by  its  laws  for 
want  of  jurisdiction,  although  it  would  be  deemed  valid  where 
it  was  rendered.33 

The  records  and  judicial  proceedings  to  which  full  faith  and 
credit  are  to  be  given  are  only  such  as  are  duly  rendered  by  a 
competent  court,34  but  without  regard  to  whether  they  are  su- 
perior courts  of  record  or  inferior  tribunals.35  A  judgment 
recovered  in  one  state  does  not  carry  with  it  into  another  state 
the  efficacy  of  a  judgment  to  be  enforced  simply  by  an  execu- 
tion; it  is  merely  evidence  in  the  latter  state  that  the  subject 
matter  of  the  suit  has  become  matter  of  record  in  the  former, 
which  cannot  be  avoided  except  by  the  plea  of  nul  tiel  record.36 
So  a  judgment  of  a  sister  state  has  the  force  of  a  judgment 
in  a  sister  state  only  so  far  as  to  preclude  inquiry  into  the  merits 
of  the  controversy.37  In  an  action  on  a  judgment  by  confes- 
sion rendered  in  another  state  the  defendant  may  show  want 
of  authority  in  the  attorney  to  confess.38 

48  Fed.  427;  L'Engle  v.  Gates,  74  Fed.  514;  Peel  v.  January,  35  Ark. 
337,  37  Am.  Eep.  31;  Newcomb  v.  Newcomb,  13  Bush,  571,  26  Am. 
Eep.  236. 

32  Caldwell  v.  Carrington,  9  Pet.  86,  9  L.  ed.  60;  Glenn  y.  Williams, 
60  Md.  113. 

33  Grover  Machine  Co.  v.  Eadcliffe,  137  TJ.  S.  299,  11  S.  Ct.  92, 
34  L.  ed.  670;  Bodgers  v.  Adriatic  Ins.  Co.,  148  N.  Y.  39,  42  N.  E.  516. 

34  Aldrich  v.  Kinney,  4  Conn.  380,  10  Am.  Dec.  151;  Bissell  v. 
Eriggs,  9  Mass.  462,  6  Am.  Dec.  88. 

35  Taylor  v.  Barron,  30  N.  H.  78,  64  Am.  Dec.  281;  Silver  Lake 
Bank  v.  Harding,  5  Ohio,  545;  Pelton  v.  Platner,  13  Ohio,  209,  42 
Am.  Dec.  197. 

36  McElmoyle  v.  Cohen,  13  Pet.  325,  10  L.  ed.  177;  Huntington  r. 
Attrill,  146  TJ.  S.  685,  13  S.  Ct.  234,  36  L.  ed.  1123;  Claflin  v.  Mc- 
Dermott,  20  Blatchf.  524,  12  Fed.  376;  Walser  v.  Seligman,  21  Blatchf. 
133,  13  Fed.  417. 

37  McElmoyle  v.  Cohen,  13  Pet.  326,  10  L.  ed.  177;  Pennoyer  v. 
Neff,  95  TJ.  S.  729,  24  L.  ed.  565;  Simmons  v.  Saul,  138  TJ.  S.  459, 
11  S.  Ct.  376,  34  L.  ed.  1054;  Glass  v.  Blackwell,  48  Ark.  54,  2  S. 
W.  258;  Eaton  v.  Hasty,  6  Neb.  426,  29'  Am.  Eep.  367;  Bowler  v. 
Huston,  30  Gratt.  274,  32  Am.  Eep.  677. 

88  First  National  Bank  v.  Cunningham,  48  Fed.  514. 


Art.  IV,  §  1  State  Records.  566 

Where  a  statute  of  one  state  provides  that  service  on  the  res- 
ident agent  of  a  foreign  corporation  shall  he  effectual,  a  judg- 
ment recovered  against  a  corporation  of  another  state  on  such 
service  is  entitled  to  the  same  faith  and  credit  in  the  latter 
as  in  the  former.39  So,  also,  a  judgment  against  a  director, 
individually,  under  a  state  statute  is  conclusive  evidence  of  a 
direct  liability  between  the  parties,  and  is  a  debt  of  record 
upon  which  an  action  will  lie  in  another  state.40  Full  faith 
and  credit  is  not  denied  to  the  judgment  of  another  state  by 
admitting  evidence  to  show  that  a  discontinuance  was  not  in- 
tended as  satisfaction  but  was  pursuant  to  an  agreement  never 
fulfilled;41  nor  is  this  provision  violated  by  a  finding  in  a  suit 
on  a  judgment  of  a  sister  state  rendered  pursuant  to  an  agree- 
ment that  the  agreement  was  not  in  controversy;42  but  the  re- 
fusal of  a  state  court  to  enforce  the  decree  of  a  court  of  a  sister 
state  by  reason  of  an  erroneous  decision  that  the  latter  court 
was  without  jurisdiction  is  a  violation  of  this  clause.43  Where 
in  the  original  suit  the  question  was  as  to  whether  the  plaintiff 
had  accepted  a  provision  in  a  will,  a  decree  in  another  suit  in 
a  sister  state,  between  the  same  parties,  which  denies  the  bind- 
ing force  of  the  original  decree  is  unconstitutional  and  void.44 
A  judgment  by  confession  is  entitled  to  the  same  faith  and 
credit  as  any  other  judgment.45 

The  guaranty  of  faith  and  credit  extends  to  judgments  of 
courts  in  the  District  of  Columbia.46  and,  under  the  act  of 
1790,  state  judgments  are  entitled  to  full  faith  and  credit  in 
the  District  of  Columbia.47 

39  Lafayette  Ins.  Co.  v.  French,  18  How.  406,  15  L.  ed.  451. 

40  Huntington  v.  Attrill,  146  U.  S.  686,  13  S.  Ct.  224,  36  L.  ed.  1123. 

41  Jacobs  v.  Marks,  182  U.  S.  595,  21  S.  Ct.  865,  45  L.  ed.  1241. 

42  Texas  etc.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Southern  Pacific  Co.,  137  U.  S.  55,  11  S. 
Ct.  10,  34  L.  ed.  614. 

43  Laing  v.  Rigney,  160  U.  S.  539,  16  S.  Ct.  366,  40  L.  ed.  525. 

44  Carpenter  v.  Strange,  141  U.  S.  104,  11  S.  Ct.  960,  35  L.  ed.  640. 

45  Van  Norman  v.  Gordon,  172  Mass.  580,  70  Am.  St.  Rep.  307, 
53  N.  E.  268,  44  L.  R.  A.  840. 

46  Savin  v.  Bond,  57  Md.  28. 

47  Mills  v.  Duryee,  7  Cr.  485,  3  L.  ed.  411. 


567  State  Kecords.  Art.  IV,  §  1 
Power  of  Congress. 


This  provision  does  not  confer  npon  Congress  the  power  to 
give  a  judgment  all  the  legal  properties,  rights  and  attributes 
to  which  it  is  entitled  by  the  laws  of  the  state  where  it  is  ren- 
dered;48 nor  does  it  guarantee  that  the  effect  and  consequences 
of  litigation  in  one  state  shall  follow  it  into  other  states.49 
It  does  not  have  the  effect  of  extending  the  local  jurisdiction, 
or  the  operation  of  a  local  decree.50 

The  probate  of  a  will  being,  in  effect,  a  decree  in  rem,  can- 
not operate  on  property  beyond  the  state  wherein  it  is  ren- 
dered,51 and  a  judgment  as  to  the  effect  of  a  will  rendered  in 
the  testator's  domicile  is  not  conclusive  in  another  state  where 
land  devised  is  situated;52  and  this  is  true  of  insolvency  pro- 
ceedings.53 A  discharge  granted  in  one  state  will  not  bar  a 
nonresident  creditor,54  and  a  discharge  from  imprisonment  in 
one  state  cannot  bar  an  arrest  of  the  debtor  in  another  state.55 
But  the  constitution  does  not  forbid  a  court  of  equity  in  one 
state  to  enjoin  a  suit  by  one  of  its  citizens  in  another;  e.  g., 
where,  pending  proceedings  in  insolvency,  a  citizen  of  the  same 

48  Brengle  v.  McClellan,  7  Gill    &  J.  434. 

49  Shelton  v.  Johnson,  4  Sneed,  672,  70  Am.  Dee.  265. 

50  Pennoyer  v.  Neff,  95  U.  S.  727,  24  L.  ed.  565;  Brown  v.  Camp- 
tell,  100  Cnl.  641,  38  Am.  St.  Eep.  317,  35  Pae.  431;  Bowen  v.  John- 
son, 5  E.  I.  112,  73  Am.  Dec.  49. 

51  Darby  v.  Mayer,  10  Wheat.  469,  6  L.  ed.  367;  Eobertson  v.  Pick- 
rell,  109  U.  S.  611,  3  S.  Ct.  409,  27  L.  ed.  1049;  Calloway  v.  Doe, 
1  Blackf.  372;  Sneed  v.  Ewing,  5  J.  J.  Marsh.  466,  22  Am.  Dee.  47; 
Bullock  v.  Bullock,  51  N.  J.  Eq.  446,  27  Atl.  436. 

52  Clarke  v.  Clarke,  178  TJ.  S.  195,  20  S.  Ct.  873,  41  L.  ed.  1028. 

53  McElmoyle  v.  Cohen,  13  Pet.  325,  10  L.  ed.  177;  Ogden  v. 
Saundeis,  12  Wheat.  363,  6  L.  ed.  606;  Denny  v.  Bennett,  128  U.  S. 
497,  9  S.  Ct.  137,  32  L.  ed.  491;  Newton  v.  Hagerman,  10  Saw.  462, 
22  Fed.  526. 

54  Denny  v.  Bennett,  128  U.  S.  497,  9  S.  Ct.  137,  32  L.  ed.  491; 
Felch  v.  Bugbee,  48  Me.  13,  77  Am.  Dec.  20(3;  Phelps  v.  Borland,  103 
N.  Y.  410,  57  Am.  Rep.  756,  9  N.  E.  309;  Brengle  v.  McClellan,  7 
Gill  &  J.  434;  Cameron  v.  Wurtz,  4  MeCord,  278;  Colts'  Estate,  4 
Watt^  &  S.  314. 

55  Woodhull  v.  Wagner,  Baldw.  298,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,975;  Wood 
v.  Malin,  10  N.  J.  L.  210;  Joice  v.  Scales,  19  Ga.  725. 


Art.  IV,  §  1  State  "Records.  5G8 

state  as  the  debtor  endeavors  by  attachment  to  secure  property 
in  another  state.56 

The  authenticity  of  a  judgment  and  its  effect  depend  upon 
the  law  made  pursuant  to  the  constitution,57  which  declares 
that  Congress  may  mark  out  the  effect  and  define  the  general 
power  given.58  Under  this  clause  Congress  is  vested  with 
power  to  declare  the  judgments  of  one  state  conclusive  in  every 
other  state;  but  Congress  has  never  executed  its  power  to  this 
extent  and  has  merely  declared  that  such  judgments  shall  have 
the  same  effect  in  other  states  as  in  the  states  where  they  were 
rendered.59  Congress  has  provided  that  the  judicial  records  of 
one  state  shall  be  proved  by  a  certified  copy,  which,  when  duly 
authenticated,  shall  have,  in  the  courts  of  every  other  state, 
the  same  faith  and  credit  as  it  has  in  the  state  where  rendered.60 
In  order  to  have  this  effect,  however,  it  must  be  authenticated 
as  required  by  the  act  of  Congress;61  but  this  does  not  preclude 
a  state  from  requiring  that,  when  offered  in  its  own  courts,  a 
judgment  shall  require  less  proof  than  that  prescribed  by  the 
act  of  Congress.62 

A  state  may  give  to  the  judgment  of  a  sister  state  any  effect 
it  may  deem  proper,  provided  it  does  not  deny  to  such  judgment 
the  effect  guaranteed  to  it  by  the  constitution  and  acts  of  Con- 
gress.63 The  legislature  may  fix  different  times  for  barring 
suit  upon  judgments  of  other  states.64 

56  Cole  v.  Cunningham,  133  U.  S.  116,  10  S.  Ct.  269,  33  L.  ed.  538; 
Allen  v.  Buchanan,  97  Ala.  403,  38  Am.  St.  Rep.  191,  11  South.  779. 

57  McElmoyle  v.  Cohen,  13  Pet.  312,  10  L.  ed.  177. 

58  Curtis  v.   Gibbs,   1  Pen.   N.  J.   435. 

59  Mills  v.  Duryee,  7  Cr.  484,  3  L.  ed.  411;  Green  v.  Van  Buskirk, 
7  Wall.  145,  19  L.  ed.  109;  Caperton  v.  Ballard,  14  Wall.  243,  20  L. 
ed.  885;  Robertson  v.  Pickrell,  109  U.  S.  611,  3  S.  Ct.  409,  27  L.  ed. 
1049;  Warren  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Aetna  Ins.  Co.,  2  Paine,  501,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
17,206;  Green  v.  Sarmiento,  3  Wash.  C.  C.  17,  1  Pet.  C.  C.  74,  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  5760. 

60  Christmas  v.  Russell,  5  Wall.  301,  18  L.  ed.  475;  Green  v.  Vaa 
Buskirk,  7  Wall.  145,  19  L.  ed.  109. 

61  Caperton  v.  Ballard,  14  Wall.  243,  20  L.  ed.  885. 

62  Parke  v.  Williams,  7  Cal.  247;  Whitwell  v.  Barbier,  7  Cal.  54; 
Wickersham  v.  Johnston,  104  Cal.  414,  43  Am.  St.  Rep.  122,  38  Pac. 
89. 

63  Bissell  v.  Briggs,  9  Mass.  462,  6  Am.  Dee.  88. 

64  McElmoyle  v.  Cohen,  13  Pet.  312,  10  L.  ed.  177;  Bacon  v.  How- 
ard, 13  How.  22,  15  L.  ed.  811;  Robinson  v.  Peyton,  4  Tex.  276. 


569 


State  Citizenship.        Art.  IV,  §  2,  CI.  1 


SECTION  2. 

PEIVTLEGES  AND  IMMUNITIES  OF  STATE  CITIZENS,  ETC. 

1.  Entitled  to  same  alike  in  every  State. 

2.  Fugitives   from   justice. 

3.  Fugitives  from  servitude. 

1.  The  citizens  of  each  State  shall  be  entitled  to 
all  privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens  in  the  sev- 
eral States. 

Who  are  Citizens. 

The  word  "citizen,"  in  its  largest  sense,  means  a  native-born 
or  naturalized  person  who  is  entitled  to  protection  in  the  exer- 
cise and  enjoyment  of  his  private  rights.1  As  used  in  the  con- 
stitution it  means  a  member  of  the  nation  owing  allegiance 
thereto  and  entitled  to  protection  therefrom.2  Persons  may  be 
citizens,  although  they  exercise  no  share  of  the  political  power 
and  are  incapacitated  from  holding  particular  offices.3 

The  term  "citizen"  is  often  used  to  convey  the  idea  of  mem- 
bership in  a  nation,  and  in  that  sense  a  woman  is  a  citizen 
when  born  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States,4  or 
when  married  to  a  citizen,  regardless  of  the  time  of  the  mar- 
riage or  of  the  husband's  naturalization.5     All  white  persons 

1  Walsh  v.  Lallande,  25  La.  Ann.  188. 

2  Minor  v.  Happersett,  21  Wall.  166,  22  L.  ed.  627;  United  State? 
v.  Cruikshank,  92  TJ.  S.  549,  23  L.  ed.  588;  Boyd  v.  Thayer,  143  U. 
S.  158,  12  S.  Ct.  380,  36  L.  ed.  103;  Blair  v.  Silver  Peak  Mines,  93 
Fed.  335. 

3  Dred  Scott  v.  Sandford,  19  How.  422,  15  L.  ed.  691;  Lyons  v. 
Cunningham,  66  Cal.  42,  4  Pac.  938;  Blanck  v.  Pausch,  113  111.  60; 
State  v.  Fairlamb,  121  Mo.  137,  25  S.  W.  895. 

4  Minor  v.  Happersett,  21  Wall.  166,  22  L.  ed.  627;  In  re  Lockwood, 
154  U.  S.  117,  14  S.  Ct.  1082,  38  L.  ed.  929. 

5  Kelly  v.  Owen,  7  Wall.  498,  19  L.  ed.  283;  Ware  v.  Wisner,  4 
McCrary,  69,  50  Fed.  312;  Kreitz  v.  Behrensmeyer,  125  111.  197,  8 
Am.  St.  Eep.  376,  17  N.  E.  254. 


Art.  IV,  §  2,  CI.  1       State  Citizenship.  570 

who  were  born  in  the  Colonies  and  adhered  to  the  cause  of  in- 
dependence up  to  July  4,  1776,  were  citizens.6 

The  nationality  of  the  inhabitants  of  acquired  territory 
changes  with  sovereignty;  accordingly,  when  the  United  States 
acquires  foreign  territory  by  conquest  or  cession  the  inhabitants 
become  United  States  citizens  subject  to  their  election.7  All 
free  inhabitants  of  Texas  at  the  time  of  annexation  became 
citizens  of  the  United  States  at  their  own  election.8  So  also 
the  inhabitants  of  California  after  the  treaty  Guadalupe  Hi- 
dalgo, who  remained  and  adhered  to  the  United  States,  are  to 
be  deemed  citizens,9  and  the  treaty  by  which  Florida  was  ceded 
to  the  United  States  operated  to  admit  the  inhabitants  to  the 
privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens  of  the  United  States,  al- 
though they  were  not  thereby  admitted  to  all  political  rights.10 

A  citizen  of  the  United  States  is  a  citizen  of  the  state  where 
he  resides,11  and  the  admission  of  a  territory  on  an  equal  foot- 
ing with  the  original  states  involves  the  adoption  of  its  inhabi- 
tants as  citizens  of  the  United  States.12 

6  Ware  v.  Hylton,  3  Dall.  224,  1  L.  ed.  568;  Inglis  v.  Sailors'  Snug 
Harbor,  3  Pet.  121,  7  L.  ed.  617;  Dawson  v.  Godfrey,  4  Cr.  321,  2 
L.  ed.  634;  Fairfax  v.  Hunter,  7  Cr.  603,  3  L.  ed.  453;  United  States 
v.  Kitchie,  17  How.  538,  15  L.  ed.  236;  Shanks  v.  Dupont,  3  Pet.  245, 
7  L.  ed.  666;  Kelly  v.  Harrison,  20  Johns.  Cas.  29,  1  Am.  Dec.  154. 

7  McKinney  v.  Saviego,  18  How.  240,  15  L.  ed.  365;  Boyd  v.  Ne- 
braska, 143  U.  S.  162,  12  S.  Ct.  375,  36  L.  ed.  103;  Cryer  v.  Andrews, 
11  Tex.  105;  Tobin  v.  Wilkinshaw,  McAll.  186,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,070; 
People  v.  Naglee,  1  Cal.  232,  52  Am.  Dec.  312;  Quintana  v.  Tomkin?, 
1  N.  Mex.  29. 

8  Calkins  v.  Cocke,  14  How.  227,  14  L.  ed.  398;  Barrett  v.  Kelly,  31 
Tex.  476.  But  see  Coutzen  v.  United  States,  179  U.  S.  195,  45  L.  ed. 
148,  21  S.  Ct.  98. 

9  McKinney  v.  Saviego,  18  How.  289,  15  L.  ed.  365;  United  States 
v.  Eitchie,  17  How.  538,  15  L.  ed.  236;  Tobin  v.  Wilkinshaw,  McAlL 
186,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,070;  People  v.  De  La  Guerra,  40  Cal.  311. 

10  American  Ins.  Co.  v.  Cotton,  1  Pet.  582,  7  L.  ed.  242;  United 
States  v.  Gratiot,  14  Pet.  526,  10  L.  ed.  573;  Cross  v.  Harrison,  16 
How.  189,  14  L.  ed.  889. 

u   Gassies  v.  Ballou,  6  Pet.  762,  8  L.  ed.  573;  Marks  v.  Marks,  75 
Fed.  328;  Easterly  v.  Goodwin,  35  Conn.  286,  95  Am.  Dec.  239. 
12  Boyd  v.  Thayer,  143  U.  S,  170,  12  S.  Ct.  375,  36  L.  ed.  103. 


571  State  Citizenship.        Art.  IV,  §  2,  01. 1 

The  term  is  of  the  same  import  as  the  word  "freeman,"  and 
includes  every  person  who,  by  birth  or  naturalization,  is  or  may 
be  qualified  to  enjoy  all  the  rights  which  a  native-born  inhabi- 
tant does  or  can  enjoy.13  Prior  to  the  Fourteenth  Amendment, 
however,  it  did  not  include  free  negroes  and  mulattoes.14 
This  amendment  not  only  conferred  on  persons  of  color  the 
privileges  and  immunities  of  citizenship,  but  prohibited  the 
states  from  denying  to  them  the  equal  protection  of  the  laws.15 
The  Indian  tribes  are  separate  political  communities,  and  a 
member  of  such  a  tribe  is  not  a  citizen,  although  born  within 
the  limits  of  the  United  States.16  He  may  become  a  citizen  by 
voluntarily  separating  himself  from  his  tribe  and  indicating  an 
intention  to  sever  the  tribal  relations.17  But  mere  separation 
from  his  tribe  is  insufficient;  there  must  be  some  recognition 
of  his  status  as  a  citizen  by  the  United  States  or  a  state.18 

Birth  and  allegiance  go  together  except  in  the  case  of  the 
child  of  an  ambassador  or  public  minister.19  So  a  child  born 
of  Chinese  parents  domiciled  in  the  United  States,  carrying  on 
business  here,  and  not  employed  in  any  diplomatic  or  official 
capacity  by  the  Chinese  Government,  is  a  citizen  of  the  United 
States.20 

13  Slaughter-house  Cas^s,  16  Wall.  129,  21  L.  ed.  394;  Douglass 
V.  Stephens,  1  Del.  Ch.  465. 

14  Drecl  Scott  v.  Sandford,  19  How.  404,  15  L.  ed.  691;  Donovan 
v.  Pitcher,  53  Ala.  415,  25  Am.  Rep.  636;  Pendleton  v.  State,  6  Ark. 
509;  Clark  v.  Gautier,  8  Fla.  362. 

15  Strauder  v.  West  Virginia,  100  U.  S.  303,  25  L.  ed.  664. 

16  McKay  v.  Campbell,  2  Saw.  118,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8840;  In  ra 
Sah  Quah,  31  Fed.  327. 

17  Elk  v.  Wilkins,  112  U.  S.  103,  5  S.  Ct.  41,  2S  L.  ed.  643;  Smith 
v.  United  States,  151  U.  S.  56,  14  S.  Ct.  234,  38  L.  ed.  67. 

is  Elk  v.  Wilkins,  112  U.  S.  103,  5  S.  Ct.  41,  2S  L.  ed.  643;  United 
States  v.  Osborn,  6  Saw.  406,  2  Fed.  58;  Paul  v.  Chilsoquie,  70  Fed. 
402. 

19  Inglis  v.  Sailors'  Snug  Harbor,  3  Pet.  99,  7  L.  ed.  617;  Slaughter- 
house Cases,  16  Wall.  73,  21  L.  ed.  394;  Geofroy  v.  Biggs,  133  U.  S. 
264,  10  S.  Ct.  295,  33  L.  ed.  642;  United  States  v.  Ehodes,  1  Abb. 
U.  S.  40,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,151. 

20  United  States  v.  Wong  Kim  Ark,  169  U.  S.  653,  18  S.  Ct.  453, 
42  L.  ed.  890. 


Art.  IV,  §  2,  CI.  1      State  Citizenship.  573 

The  term  applies  only  to  natural  persons,  members  of  the 
body  politic  owing  allegiance  to  the  state,  and  not  to  corpora- 

1ions.20a 

Privileges  and  Immunities  Guaranteed.* 

The  privileges  and  immunities  here  referred  to  are  those 
which  are  fundamental:  protection  by  the  government  and  the 
right  to  acquire  and  possess  property  of  every  kind,  and  to  pur- 
sue and  obtain  happiness  and  safety,  subject  to  governmental 
restraints  exerted,  for  the  general  good.21  In  construing  this 
constitutional  guaranty  the  meaning  of  the  word  "privileges" 
must  be  determined  in  each  case  upon  a  view  of  the  particular 
rights  asserted  and  denied  therein.22  This  clause  did  not  oper- 
ate to  create  any  new  rights,  but  merely  guaranteed  the  same 
measure  of  rights.23     Nor  did  it  make  the  privileges  and  im- 

20a  Liverpool  Ins.  Co.  v.  Massachusetts,  10  Wall.  573,  19  L.  el. 
1029;  Philadelphia  etc.  Assn.  v.  New  York,  119  TJ.  S.  117,  7  S.  Ct. 
112,  30  L.  ed.  342;  affirming  92  N.  Y.  325,  44  Am.  Eep.  388;  Blake 
v.  McClung,  172  U.  S.  259,  19  S.  Ct.  165,  43  L.  ed.  432;  Orient  Ins. 
Co.  v.  Daggs,  172  U.  S.  561,  19  S.  Ct.  281,  43  L.  ed.  552;  Lake  Shore 
etc.  Ey.  Co.  v.  Smith,  173  U.  S.  690,  19  S.  Ct.  565,  43  L.  ed.  858;  Wai- 
ren  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Aetna  Ins.  Co.,  2  Paine,  502,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,206; 
Insurance  Co.  v.  New  Orleans,  1  Woods,  85,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7052; 
American  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  67  Ala.  26,  42 
Am.  Rep.  90;  Baltimore  &  Ohio  Tel.  Co.  v.  Delaware  etc.  Co.  7  Houst. 
269,  31  Atl.  714;  Phoenix  Ins.  Co.  v.  Commonwealth,  5  Bush,  68,  96 
Am.  Dec.  331;  Commonwealth  v.  Milton,  12  B.  Mon.  242,  54  Am.  Dec. 
522. 

21  Slaughter-house  Cases,  16  Wall.  76,  97,  117,  21  L.  ed.  394;  Ward 
v.  Maryland,  12  Wall.  430,  20  L.  ed.  449;  Corfield  v.  Coryell,  4  Wash. 
C.  C.  371,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3230;  Bennett  v.  Boggs,  Baldw.  60,  Fe<i. 
Cas.  No.  1319;  People  v.  Loeffler,  175  111.  609,  51  N.  E.  793;  Burdick  v. 
People,  149  111.  611,  41  Am.  St.  Eep.  337,  36  N.  E.  951,  24  L.  R.  A. 
152;  Eitchie  v.  People,  155  111.  112,  46  Am.  St.  Eep.  325,  40  N.  E. 
458,  29  L.  E.  A.  79;  Cummings  v.  Wingo,  31  S.  C.  435,  10  S.  E.  110; 
State  v.  Scougal,  3  S.  Dak.  70,  44  Am.  St.  Eep.  767,  51  N.  W.  863,  15 
L.  E,  A.  477;  Commonwealth  v.  Milton,  12  B.  Mon.  212,  54  Am.  Dec. 
522. 

22  Conner  v.  Elliott,  18  How.  593,  15  L.  ed.  497;  Cory  v.  Carter, 
48  Ind.  345,  17  Am.  Eep.  745;  Buffington  v.  Grosvenor,  46  Kan.  738, 
27  Pac.  140,  13  L.  E,  A.  282;  Cofrode  v.  Circuit  Judge,  79  Mich.  342, 
44  N.  W.  626,  7.  L.  E.  A.  511;  Chambers  v.  Church,  14  E.  I.  400,  51 
Am.  Eep.  411;  Cummings  v.  Wingo,  31  S.  C.  435,  10  S.  E.  110. 

23  Slaughter-house  Cases,  16  Wall.  77,  21  L.  ed.  394. 


♦See  p.   702  et  seq.,  for  privileges   of  United   States  citizenship. 


573  State  Citizenship.        Art.  IV,  §  2,  CI.  1 

m unities  enjoyed  by  the  citizens  of  one  state  under  its  constitu- 
tion and  laws  the  measure  of  those  to  be  enjoyed,  as  of  right, 
by  a  citizen  of  another  state  under  its  laws.24  It  forbids  only 
such  legislation  affecting  citizens  of  the  respective  states  as  will 
substantially  or  practically  put  a  citizen  of  one  state  in  a  con- 
dition of  alienage  ,when  in  another  state,  or  when  asserting  in 
another  state  rights  that  commonly  appertain  to  United  States 
citizenship.23 

The  privileges  and  immunities  guaranteed  are  such  as  belong 
to  general  citizenship;26  they  are  those  which  are  common  to 
the  citizens  of  the  several  states,  and  do  not  embrace  special 
privileges;27  nor  privileges  granted  by  the  local  laws  of  a 
state;28  e.  g.,  the  rights  of  representation  and  election.29  A 
law  dispensing  with  security  for  costs  as  to  residents;30  a  law 
granting  more  liberal  dower  rights  to  residents  than  to  nonres- 
idents;31 or  a  law  granting  a  right  peculiar  to  some  individual 
or  body.32  A  citizen  of  one  state  is  entitled  to  no  greater  privi- 
leges or  immunities  in  another  state  than  the  citizens  of  that 
state.33  Nor  does  this  clause  give  to  laws  of  one  state  any 
operation  in  other  states;34  it  merely  provides  that  no  privilege 
allowed  to  the  most  favored  class  shall  be  withheld  from  citi- 
zens of  another  state.35 

The  right  to  institute  actions  is  one  of  the  privileges  of  the 

24  McKane  v.  Durston,  153  U.  S.  687,  14  S.  Ct.  913,  38  L.  ed.  867. 

25  Blake  v.  McClung,  172  IT.  S.  256,  19  S.  Ct.  165. 

26  Dred  Scott  v.  Sandford,  19  How.  580,  15  L.  ed.  691. 

27  Paul  v.  Virginia,  8  Wall.  180,  19  L.  ed.  357. 

28  Conner  v.  Elliott,  18  How.  593,  15  L.  ed.  497;  Live  Stock  et«. 
Assn.  v.  Crescent  City  etc.  Co.,  1  Abb.  U.  S.  397;  Slaughter-house 
Cases,  16  Wall.  36,  21  L.  ed.  394. 

29  Dred  Scott  v.  Sandford,  19  How.  580,  15  L.  ed.  691;  Murray  v. 
McCarty,  2  Munf.  393;  Allen  v.  Sarah,  2  Harr.  434;  Smith  v.  Moody, 
26  Ind.  299;  Campbell  v.  Morris,  3  Har.  &  McH.  535. 

30  Cummings  v.  Wingo,  31  S.  C.  435,  10  S.  E.  110. 

31  Bennett  v.  Harms,  51  Wis.  259,  8  N.  W.  225. 

32  Ex  parte  Coupland,  26  Tex.  420. 

33  Detroit  v.  Osborne,  135  U.  S.  498,  10  S.  Ct.  1012,  34  L.  ed.  260. 

34  Paul  v.  Virginia,  8  Wall.  180,  19  L.  ed.  357. 

35  Tennessee  v.  Claiborne,  1  Meigs,  331. 


Art.  IV,  §  2,  CI.  1       State  Citizenship.  574 

citizens  of  each  state,35*  and  a  resident  of  one  state  may  attach 
the  property  of  his  debtor  in  another,36  subject,  however,  to 
limitations  imposed  by  the  lex  fori  ;37  and  a  citizen  of  one  state 
may  sue  a  foreigner  in  another  state.38  But  it  is  not  a  privi- 
lege or  immunity  contemplated  by  this  clause  to  have  a  con- 
troversy determined  by  one  form  of  action  instead  of  by  an- 
other;39 a  state  has  full  control  over  the  procedure  of  its  courts, 
both  in  civil  and  criminal  cases,  subject  only  to  the  restriction 
that  it  shall  not  deny  fundamental  rights  or  violate  the  national 
constitution.40  So  an  act  which  distinguishes  between  residents 
and  nonresidents  as  to  the  manner  of  bringing  suits  is  valid.41 

As  regards  taxation  the  citizens  of  one  state  are  entitled  to 
all  the  privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens  of  another,  and 
where  a  tax  cannot  be  enforced  against  a  resident  it  cannot  be 
enforced  against  a  nonresident,42  and  a  state  license  tax  dis- 
criminating against  nonresidents  is  void.43 

The  "privileges  and  immunities"  guaranteed  include  the  right 
of  a  citizen  of  one  state  to  pass  unmolested  into  another  for 
lawful  commerce,  to  acquire  and  hold  property,  to  maintain 
actions  and  to  be  exempt  from  higher  taxes  than  are  imposed 
by  a  state  on  its  own  citizens.44     A  right  attaching  to  a  contract 

35a  Davis  v.  Pierse,  7  Minn.  13,  82  Am.  Dec.  65;  McFarland  v. 
Butler,  8  Minn.  116;  Jackson  v.  Butler,  8  Minn.  117;  Morgan  v. 
Neville,  74  Pa.  St.  52;  Keynolds  v.  Geary,  26  Conn.  183. 

36  Morgan  v.  Neville,  74  Pa.  St.  52. 

37  Kincaid  v.  Francis,  Cooke,  49;  Campbell  v.  Morris,  3  Har.  & 
McH.  535. 

38  Barrett  v.  Benjamin,  15  Mass.  354. 

39  Iowa  Central  By.  Co.  v.  Iowa,  160  U.  S.  393,  16  S.  Ct.  344,  40 
L.  ed.  467. 

40  Maxwell  v.  Dow,  176  U.  S.  604,  20  S.  Ct.  448,  44  L.  ed.  597. 

41  Robinson  v.  Oceanic  Steam  Nav.  Co.,  112  N.  Y.  315,  19  N.  E. 
625,  2  L.  R.  A.  636;  Central  R.  R.  etc.  Co.  v.  Georgia  Const,  etc.  Co., 
32  S.  C.  319,  11  S.  E.  192;  Kincaid  v.  Francis,  3  Tenn.  49;  Paducah 
Hotel  Co.  v.  Long,  92  Ky.  278,  17  S.  W.  853. 

42  Union  National  Bank  v.  Chicago,  3  Biss.  82,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
14,374;  Campbell  v.  Morris,  3  Har.  &  McH.  535. 

43  "Ward  v.  Maryland,  12  Wall.  429,  20  L.  ed.  449;  Ex  parte  Thorn- 
ton, 4  Hughes,  230,  12  Fed.  546;  Gould  v.  Mayor,  55  Ga.  685. 

44  Ward  v.  Maryland,  12  "Wall.  430,  20  L.  ed.  449;  Guy  v.  Balti- 
more, 100  U.  S.  439,  25  L.  ed.  743;  In  re  Watson,  15  Fed.  512;  Far- 


575  State  Citizenship.        Art.  IV,  §  2,  CI.  1 

of  marriage,  wholly  irrespective  of  the  citizenship  of  the  par- 
ties, cannot  be  deemed  a  privilege  of  citizenship.45  Nor  does 
this  clause  invest  citizens  of  one  state  with  any  interest  in  the 
common  property  of  citizens  of  another  state;  e.  g.,  the  right 
to  fish  or  to  plant  oysters.46 

Congress  cannot  grant  privileges  to  citizens  of  one  state  over 
those  of  another,  and  cannot  empower  a  state  to  do  so.47 

Extent  of  Restriction  on  the  States. 

The  object  of  this  clause  was  to  prevent  such  legislation  on 
the  part  of  a  state  as  would  place  a  citizen  of  another  state 
substantially  in  a  condition  of  alienage  when  within  the  former's 
borders;48  in  other  words,  to  prevent  each  state  from  discrimi- 
nating in  favor  of  its  own  citizens  as  against  those  of  other 
states.49  Citizens  of  one  state  do  not,  by  this  clause,  acquire 
any  peculiar  privileges  in  another  state  except  upon  the  con- 
ditions on  which  they  may  be  held  or  enjoyed  by  the  citizens 
of  such  other  state,50  and  where  the  laws  differ,  a  citizen  of  one 
state  claiming  rights  in  another  must  claim  according  to  the 
laws  of  the  latter;51  this  clause  does  not  give  the  laws  of  his 
state  any  operation  beyond  its  own  borders.52 

The  guaranty  does  not  exempt  the  citizens  of  other  states 
from  any  conditions  which  the  laws  of  a  state  may  impose  upon 

mers'  Loan  etc.  Co.  v.  Chicago  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  27  Fed.  149;  Mercan- 
tile Bank  v.  Shields,  59  Fed.  956;  Crandall  v.  Nevada,  6  WaU.  35, 
18  L.  ed.  745;  Sprague  v.  Fletcher,  69  Vt.  78,  37  Atl.  242,  37  L.  E. 
A.  840;  Eingartner  v.  Illinois  Steel  Co.,  94  Wis.  76,  59  Am.  St.  Eep. 
861,  68  N.  W.  666,  34  L.  E.  A.  503;  Ex  parte  Archy,  9  Cal.  147;  Julia 
v.  McKinney,  3  Mo.  270;  State  v.  Medbury,  3  E.  I.  142. 

45  Conner  v.  Elliott,  18  How.  593,  15  L.  ed.  497. 

46  McCready  v.  Virginia,  94  U.  S.  395,  24  L.  ed.  248. 

47  Chapman  v.  Miller,  2  Spear,  769. 

48  Blake  v.  McClung,  172  U.  S.  256,  19  S.  Ct.  165,  43  L.  ed.  432. 

49  Davis  v.  Pierse,  7  Minn.  13,  82  Am.  Dee.  65. 

50  Paul  v.  Virginia,  8  Wall.  180,  19  L.  ed.  357;  Philadelphia  Fire 
Assn.  v.  New  York,  119  U.  S.  117,  7  S.  Ct.  112,  30  L.  ed.  342;  Eey- 
nolds  v.  Grary,  26  Conn.  179;  Commonwealth  v.  Milton,  12  B.  Mon, 
212,  54  Am.  Dec.  522;  Lemmon  v.  People,  5  Sand.  €81,  20  N.  Y.  562. 

51  Lemmon  v.  People,  5  Sand.  681,  20  N.  Y.  562. 
62  Paul  v.  Virginia,  8  Wall.  180,  19  L.  ed.  357. 


Art.  IV,  §  2,  CI.  1       State  Citizenship.  57G 

its  own  citizens.53  nor  does  it  interfere  with  the  local  policy  of 
the  state  governments  as  to  their  citizens.54  Its  object  is  to 
prevent  discriminations  by  one  state  against  the  citizens  of 
others;55  but  it  is  not  intended  to  secure  the  citizens  of  any 
state  against  discriminations  by  their  own  state  in  favor  of  the 
citizens  of  other  states,  nor  of  one  class  of  citizens  against  an- 
other class  in  the  same  state;56  nor  to  make  the  privileges  and 
immunities  enjoyed  under  the  laws  of  one  state  the  measure 
of  those  to  be  enjoyed,  as  of  right,  in  another  state.57  So  a 
state  may  provide  that  while  a  debtor  is  out  of  its  jurisdiction 
the  statute  of  limitations  shall  not  run  as  against  a  resident 
creditor,  but  shall  as  to  a  nonresident  creditor.58 

A  state  cannot  impose  a  discriminating  tax  upon  nonresident 
traders,59  nor  pass  a  law  providing  for  a  license  and  denying 
it  to  nonresidents,60  but  a  license  tax  on  nonresident  traders 
which  applies  alike  to  residents  is  not  repugnant  to  this  clause,61 

53  Paul  v.  Virginia,  8  Wall.  180,  19  L.  ed.  357;  Commonwealth  v. 
Milton,  12  B.  Mon.  212,  54  Am.  Dec.  522;  Jackson  v.  Bullock,  12 
Conn.  38. 

54  Kincaid  v.  Francis,  Cooke,  49. 

55  Paul  v.  Virginia,  8  Wall.  168,  19  L.  ed.  357;  Ward  v.  Maryland, 
12  Wall.  418,  20  L.  ed.  449;  Williams  v.  Bruffy,  96  U.  S.  183,  24  L. 
ed.  716;  United  States  v.  Harris,  106  U.  S.  629,  1  S.  Ct.  601,  27  L.  ed. 
290;  Corfield  v.  Coryell,  4  Wash.  C.  C.  371,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3230. 

56  Bradwell  v.  State,  16  Wall.  138,  21  L.  ed.  442;  Commonwealth 
v.   Griffin,  3  B.  Mon.  208. 

57  McKane  v.  Durston,  153  U.  S.  687,  14  S.  Ct.  913,  38  L.  ed.  867. 

58  Chemung  Bank  v.  Lowery,  93  U.  S.  76,  23  L.  ed.  806;  Robinson 
v.  Oceanic  Steam  Nav.  Co.,  112  N.  Y.  325,  19  N.  E.  €27,  2  L.  R. 
A.  636. 

59  Ward  v.  Maryland,  12  Wall.  430,  20  L.  ed.  449;  Osborne  v.  Mo- 
bile, 16  Wall.  482,  21  L.  ed.  470;  Wiley  v.  Parmer,  14  Ala.  627;  Wel- 
ton  v.  Missouri,  55  Mo.  288;  Daniel  v.  Richmond,  78  Ky.  542;  Rash  v. 
Halloway,  82  Ky.  674;  Ex  parte  Bliss,  63  N.  H.  135;  State  v.  Lan- 
caster, 63  N.  H.  267.  But  see  People  v.  Coleman,  4  Cal.  46,  60  Am. 
Dec.  581. 

60  In  re  Watson,  15  Fed.  511. 

61  Woodruff  v.  Parham,  8  Wall.  140,  19  L.  ed.  382;  Hinson  v.  Lott, 
8  Wall.  148,  19  L.  ed.  387;  State  v.  Wheelock,  95  Iowa,  538,  58  Am. 
St  Rep.  444  64  N.  W.  621,  30  L.  R.  A.  429;  State  v.  Emert,  103  Mo. 
245,  23  Am!  St.  Rep.  877,  15  S.  W.  82,  11  L.  R.  A.  219;  State  v. 
Richards,  32  W.  Va.  353,  9  S.  E.  247,  3  L.  R.  A.  705. 


577  State  Citizenship.        Art.  IV,  §  2,  CI.  1 

and  the  property  of  a  nonresident  is  subject  to  the  same  tax 
as  that  of  a  resident.62 

The  guaranty  of  this  clause  does  not  apply  to  corporations,63 
and  so  does  not  restrict  a  state  in  the  regulation  of  the  business 
of  foreign  corporations  within  its  borders.64  A  state  may  im- 
pose any  restrictions  it  sees  fit  upon  the  right  of  a  foreign  cor- 
poration to  do  business,65   and  in  so  doing  may  discriminate 

62  Duer  v.  Small,  4  Blatchf.  263,  Fed.  Gas.  No.  4116;  Eedd  v.  St. 
Francis  County,  17  Ark.  416;  Battle  v.  Mobile,  9  Ala.  234,  44  Am. 
Dec.  438. 

63  Liverpool  Ins.  Co.  v.  Massachusetts,  10  Wall.  573,  19  L.  ed.  1029; 
Philadelphia  etc.  Assn.  v.  New  York,  119  U.  S.  117,  7  S.  Ct.  112,  30 
L.  ed.  342,  affirming  92  N.  Y.  325,  44  Am.  Eep.  388;  Blake  v.  McClung, 
172  U.  S.  259,  19  S.  Ct.  165,  43  L.  ed.  432;  Orient  Ins.  Co.  v.  Daggs, 
172  U.  S.  561,  19  S.  Ct.  281,  43  L.  ed.  552;  Lake  Shore  etc.  Ey.  Co. 
v.  Smith,  173  U.  S.  690,  19  S.  Ct.  565,  43  L.  ed.  858;  State  v.  Phipps, 
50  Kan.  618,  34  Am.  St.  Eep.  158,  31  Pac.  1099,  18  L.  E.  A.  657; 
Hartford  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Eaymond,  70  Mich.  502,  38  N.  W.  482; 
State  v.  Stone,  118  Mo.  403,  40  Am.  St.  Eep.  395,  24  S.  W.  167,  25 
L.  E.  A.  243;  Stanhilber  v.  Mutual  Mill  Ins.  Co.,  76  "Wis.  291,  45  N. 
W.  223. 

64  Paul  v.  Virginia,  8  Wall.  177,  19  L.  ed.  357;  Ducat  v.  Chicago, 
10  Wall.  410,  19  L.  ed.  972;  Liverpool  Ins.  Co.  v.  Massachusetts,  10 
Wall.  567,  19  L.  ed.  1029;  Pembina  Mining  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  125 
U.  S.  1S7,  8  S.  Ct.  737,  31  L.  ed.  650;  Blake  v.  McClung,  172  U.  S. 
259,  19  S.  Ct.  165,  43  L.  ed.  432;  Cincinnati  etc.  Assur.  Co.  v.  Eosen- 
thal,  55  111.  90,  8  Am.  Eep.  628;  List  v.  Commonwealth,  118  Pa.  St. 
327,  12  Atl.  279. 

65  Bank  of  Augusta  v.  Earle,  13  Pet.  591,  10  L.  ed.  274;  Lafayette 
Ins.  Co.  v.  French,  18  How.  407,  15  L.  ed.  451;  Ducat  v.  Chicago,  10 
Wall.  415,  19  L.  ed.  972;  Insurance  Co.  v.  Morse,  20  Wall.  458,  22  L. 
ed.  365;  Doyle  v.  Continental  Ins.  Co.,  94  U.  S.  540,  24  L.  ed.  148; 
Cowell  v.  Springs  Co.,  100  U.  S.  60,  25  L.  ed.  547;  St.  Clair  v.  Cox, 
106  U.  S.  356,  1  S.  Ot.  354,  27  L.  ed.  222;  Fritts  v.  Palmer,  132  TJ.  S. 
288,  10  S.  Ct.  93,  33  L.  ed.  317;  Horn  Silver  Mining  Co.  v.  New  York, 
143  U.  S.  314,  12  S.  Ct.  403,  36  L.  ed.  164;  Hooper  v.  California, 
155  U.  S.  656,  15  S.  Ct.  207,  39  L.  ed.  297;  Allgeyer  v.  Louisiana,  165 
TJ.  S.  583,  17  S.  Ct.  427,  41  L.  ed.  832;  Waters-Pierce  Oil  Co.  v. 
Texas,  177  IT.  S.  45,  20  S.  Ct.  518,  44  L.  ed.  657;  Williams  v.  Gaylord, 
186  TJ.  S.  168,  21  S.  Ct.  926,  46  L.  ed.  1102;  Hartford  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Eaymond,  70  Mich.  502,  38  N.  W.  482;  Daggs  v.  Insurance  Co.,  136 
Mo.  391,  58  Am.  St.  Eep.  641,  38  S.  W.  86,  35  L.  E.  A.  227;  Ex  part3 
Eobinson,  12  Nev.  263,  28  Am.  Eep.  794;  Huffman  v.  Western  Mort- 
gage etc.  Co.,  13  Tex.  Civ.  App.  170,  36  S.  W.  306. 

Notes  on  Constitution — 37 


Art.  IV,  §2,  CL  1      State  Citizenship.  578 

against  such  corporations  in  favor  of  its  own  corporations,  sub- 
ject only  to  the  limitations  upon  its  sovereignty  prescribed  in 
oilier  provisions  of  the  constitution.66  This  discrimination  may 
take  the  form  of  a  higher  rate  of  taxation.67 

66  Ducat  v.  Chicago,  10  Wall.  415.  19  L.  ed.  972;  Philadelphia  etc. 
Association  v.  New  York,  119  U.  S.  118,  7  S.  Ct.  112,  30  L.  ed.  342; 
Barron  v.  Burnside,  121  U.  S.  200,  7  S.  Ct.  931,  30  L.  ed.  915;  South- 
ern Pacific  Co.  v.  Denton,  146  U.  S.  207,  13  S.  Ct.  44,  36  L.  ed.  942; 
New  York  etc.  E.  R.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  153  U.  S.  655,  14  S.  Ct. 
952,  38  L.  ed.  846;  Crutcher  v.  Kentucky,  141  U.  S.  59,  11  S.  Ct. 
854,  35  L.  ed.  649;  Stockton  v.  Baltimore  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  32  Fed.  13; 
Osborne  v.  State,  33  Fla.  179,  39  Am.  St.  Rep.  110,  14  South.  588,  25 
L.  R.  A.  120;  McNaughton  v.  McGirl,  20  Mont.  124,  63  Am.  St.  Rep. 
612,  49  Pac.  652,  38  L.  R.  A.  367. 

67  Paul  v.  Virginia,  8  Wall.  178,  19  L.  ed.  357;  Ducat  v.  Chicago, 
10  Wall.  415,  19  L.  ed.  972,  affirming  48  111.  177,  95  Am.  Dec.  533; 
Philadelphia  Fire  Assn.  v.  New  York,  119  IT.  S.  118.  7  S.  Ct.  112,  30 
L.  ed.  342,  affirming  92  N.  Y.  325,  44  Am.  Rep.  388;  Horn  Silver 
Mining  Co.  v.  New  York,  143  U.  S.  314,  12  S.  Ct.  404,  36  L.  ed.  164; 
Insurance  Co.  v.  New  Orleans,  1  Woods,  87,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7052;  State 
ex  rel.  v.  Insurance  Co.  of  North  America,  115  Ind.  265,  17  N.  E.  578; 
Insurance  Co.  of  North  America  v.  Commonwealth,  87  Pa.  St.  182, 
30  Am.  Rep.  354. 


o  J  y  Fugitives  from  Justice.     Art.  IV,  §  2,  CI.  2 

2.  A  person  charged  in  any  State  with,  treason, 
felony,  or  other  crime,  who  shall  flee  from  justice,  and 
be  found  in  another  State,  shall,  on  demand  of  the  ex- 
ecutive authority  of  the  State  from  which  he  fled,  be 
delivered  up,  to  be  removed  to  the  State  having  juris- 
diction of  the  crime 

Fugitives  from  Justice. 

A  fugitive  from  justice  is  one  who,  having  committed  a  crime 
in  one  jurisdiction,  goes  into  another  to  escape  punishment,1  or 
who  conscious  of  being  liable  to  prosecution  leaves  the  state,  or 
if  admitted  to  bail  forfeits  the  same  and  again  flees.2  One  who 
commits  a  crime  in  another  state  and  afterward  returns  to  his 
own  state  is  a  fugitive  within  this  clause.3  A  person  who  com- 
mits a  crime  in  one  state,  for  which  he  is  indicted,  and  is  found 
in  another,  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  fugitive  from  justice.4  But  in 
order  to  constitute  one  a  "fugitive"  it  is  not  necessary  that  he 
should  have  fled  after  indictment  found,  or  to  avoid  prosecu- 
tion, but  simply  that  he  has  committed  a  crime  and  has  left  the 
state's  jurisdiction.5 

The  words  "fugitive  from  justice"  must  not  be  taken  in  a  lit- 
eral sense,  but  with  reference  to  the  subject  matter  involved, 
considering  the  general  object  of  the  federal  constitution  and 
laws.6  So  departure  from  the  jurisdiction  after  the  commission 
of  an  act  in  furtherance  of  a  crime  subsequently  consummated 
is  flight  rendering  the  fugitive  subject  to  extradition.7     But  one 

1  Voorhees'  Case,  32  N.  J.  L.  147;  State  v.  Hall,  115  N.  C.  811;  14 
Am.  St.  Eep.  501,  20  S.  E.  729,  28  L.  ed.  289. 

2  Ex  parte  Greenough,  31  Vt.  279. 

3  Ex  parte  Swearingen,  13  S.  C.  74. 

4  Hibler  v.  State,  43  Tex.   201. 

5  Koberts  v.  Keilly,  116  IT.  S.  97,  6  S.  Ct.  291,  29  L.  ed.  544; 
Streep  v.  United  States,  160  IT.  S.  134,  16  S.  Ct.  247,  40  L.  ed.  365; 
Ex  parte  Brown,  28  Fed.  654;  In  re  Cook,  48  Fed.  843;  State  v. 
Riekter,  37  Minn.  438,  35  N.  W.  9;  In  re  Sultan,  115  N.  C.  61,  44  Am. 
St.  Eep.  436,  20  S.  E.  377,  28  L.  K.  A.  294. 

6  Hibler  v.  State,  43  Tex.  201. 

7  In  re  Sultan,  115  N.  C.  57,  44  Am.  St.  Rep.  433,  20  S.  E.  377,  23 
L.  R.  A.  294. 


Art.  IV,  §2,  CI.  2     Fugitives  from  Justice.  580 

who  comes  into  a  state  for  one  day  on  business,  eight  days  after 
the  commission  of  an  alleged  crime  and  several  months  before 
he  is  indicted,  does  not  by  his  departure  from  the  state  be- 
come "a  fugitive  from  justice."8 

The  question  whether  the  person  demanded  is  a  fugitive  from 
justice  is  one  of  fact  for  the  governor.9  The  governor  cannot 
be  compelled  to  act  upon  a  warrant,10  and  his  action  in  issuing 
or  refusing  to  issue  a  warrant  of  extradition  is  not  reviewable 
by  the  courts.11  To  justify  the  removal  of  the  person  de- 
manded, it  should  appear  from  recitals  in  the  warrant  that  he 
is  a  fugitive  from  justice  of  the  demanding  state;12  but  whether 
the  warrant  recites  the  fact  or  not  it  will  be  deemed  sufficient 
until  the  presumption  in  its  favor  is  overthrown.13  This  clause 
does  not  prohibit  provisions  in  state  laws  for  inquiry  into  the 
question  of  fact  whether  the  person  demanded  is  a  fugitive  from 
justice.14 

One  cannot  be  a  fugitive  from  the  justice  of  a  state  in  which 
he  was  only  constructively  present  at  the  time  he  committed  the 
crime;15  the  provision  applies  only  to  those  actually  in  the 
state  at  the  time  of  the  commission  of  the  act  complained  of.16 
A  state  may,  however,  in  the  exercise  of  its  sovereign  powers 
and  as  an  act  of  comity,  provide  for  the  surrender  of  persons 
indictable  for  a  crime  committed  through  their  constructive 
presence  in  another  state,  although  they  were  never  actually 
within  the  latter  state  and  never  fled  from  it.17 

8  Hyatt  v.  New  York,  188  U.  S.  691,  23  S.  Ct.  456,  47  L.  ed.  657. 

9  In  re  Tod,  12  S.  Dak.  386,  76  Am.  St.  Eep.  616,  81  N.  W.  637,  47 
L.  E,  A.  566, 

10  Taylor  v.   Taintor,  16  Wall.   370. 

li  In  re  Sultan,  115  N.  C.  57,  44  Am.  St.  Eep.  433,  20  S.  E.  377,  2S 
L.  E.  A.  294. 

12  In  re  Tod,  12  S.  Dak.  386,  76  Am.  St.  Eep.  616,  81  N.  W.  637,  47 
L.  E.  A.  566. 

13  Eoberts  v.  Eeilly,  116  U.  S.  95,  6  S.  Ct.  291,  29  L.  ed.  544. 

14  Hartman  v.  Aveline,  63  Ind.  344,  30  Am.  Eep.  217. 

15  State  v.  Hall,  115  N.  C.  811,  44  Am.  St.  Eep.  501,  20  S.  E.  729, 
28  L.  E.  A.  289. 

16  Wilcox  v.  Nolze,  34  Ohio  St.  520. 

17  State  v.  Hall,  115  N.  C.  811,  44  Am.  St.  Eep.  501,  20  S.  E.  729, 
28  L.  E.  A.  289. 


581  Fugitives  from  Justice.     Art.  IV,  §  2,  CI.  2 
Crimes  Embraced  by  the  Clause. 


The  words  "treason,  feloiry,  or  other  crime"  embrace 
every  act  forbidden  and  made  punishable  by  the  laws  of  the 
state  where  the  act  was  committed.18  The  word  "crime"  includes 
every  species  of  indictable  offense,19  and  even  an  act  which  was 
not  criminal  at  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  the  constitution,  but 
which  was  made  so  by  subsequent  legislation.20  Nor  is  it  nec- 
essary that  the  crime  charged  be  an  offense  in  the  state  requested 
to  surrender  a  person  accused,21  nor  that  it  be  an  offense  at 
common  law.22  It  is  enough  that  it  is  a  crime  against  the 
laws  of  the  demanding  state,23  and  whether  the  act  charged  be 
a  crime  is  to  be  determined  according  to  the  law  of  the  demand- 
ing state.24  The  term  includes  any  act  punishable  by  the  law 
of  the  state  from  which  the  accused  has  fled,25  and  the  word 
"crime"'  extends  to  misdemeanors,  as  well  as  treason  or  felony.20 

18  Kentucky  v.  Dennison,  24  How.  99,  16  L.  ed.  717;  Ex  parte 
Reggel,  114  TJ.  S.  650,  5  S.  Ct.  1152,  29  L.  ed.  250;  Lascelles  v. 
Georgia,  148  U.  S.  -542,  13  S.  Ct.  689,  37  L.  ed.  549,  affirming  90  Ga. 
366,  35  Am.  St.  Rep.  222,  16  S.  E.  947;  Commonwealth  v.  Wright,  158 
Mass.  155,  35  Am.  St.  Rep.  480,  33  N.  E.  54,  19  L.  R.  A.  206;  Brown's 
Case,  112  Mass.  411,  17  Am.  Rep.  116;  In  re  Voorhees,  32  N.  J.  L.  149; 
People  v.  Donohue,  84  N.  Y.  441;  In  re  Hooper,  52  Wis.  702,  58  N.  W. 
741. 

19  In   re  Voorhees,   32   N.   J.   L.   149. 

20  In  re  Voorhees,  32  N.  J.  L.  149;  People  v.  Brady,  56  N.  Y.  182; 
Ex  parte  Hughes,  Phill.  (N.  C.)  57. 

21  Lascelles  v.  State,  90  Ga.  366,  35  Am.  St.  Rep.  222,  16  S.  E. 
947. 

22.  In  re  Fetter,  3  Zab.  311,  57  Am.  Dec.  382. 

23  Lascelles  v.  Georgia,  148  TJ.  S.  542,  13  S.  Ct.  689,  37  L.  ed. 
549;  Commonwealth  v.  Wright,  158  Mass.  155,  35  Am.  St.  Eep.  480, 
33  N".  E.  84,  19  L.  R.  A.  206;  Johnson  v.  Riley,  13  Ga.  97;  In  re 
Clark,  9  Wend.  221;  Commonwealth  v.  Daniels,  6  Pa.  L.  J.  428; 
Brown's  Case,  112  Mass.  411,  17  Am.  Rep.  116;  People  v.  Donohue,  84 
X.  Y.  441. 

24  Kentucky  v.  Dennison,  24  How.  107,  6  L.  ed.  717;  Johnson  v. 
Riley,  13  Ga.  133.  But  see  Ex  parte  Spears,  88  Cal.  643,  22  Am.  St. 
Rep.  344,  26  Pac.  609. 

25  Kentucky  v.   Dennison,   24  How.   99,  16  L.   ed.   717. 

26  Ex  parte  Reggel,  114  U.  S.  650,  5  S.  Ct.  1152,  29  L.  ed.  250; 
Brown's  Case,  112  Mass.  411.  17  Am.  Eep.  116;  Barranger  .v.  Baum, 
103  Ga.  475,  68  Am.  St.  Rep.  522,  30  S.  E.  528. 


Art.  IV,  §  2,  CI.  2     Fugitives  from  Justice.  582 

Not  only  is  it  true  that  a  fugitive  may  be  held  and  tried  in  the 
demanding  state  for  a  crime  other  than  that  charged  in  the 
warrant  of  extradition  if  the  criminal  act  for  which  he  was  ex- 
tradited and  that  for  which  he  was  indicted  is  the  same,27  but 
it  is  now  the  rule  that  a  prisoner  lawfully  brought  within  the 
state  for  trial  for  one  offense  may  be  charged  with  and  tried  for 
another/28  the  rule  that  a  person  can  be  tried  only  for  the  of- 
fense for  which  he  is  extradited  applying  only  to  persons  sur- 
rendered by  a  foreign  government.29 

Demand  for  Surrender. 


A  demand  on  the  governor  of  a  state  for  a  fugitive  must 
show  (1)  that  the  person  is  substantially  charged  with  a  crime 
against  the  laws  of  the  demanding  state  by  indictment  or  af- 
fidavit, certified  by  the  governor  as  authentic,  and  (2)  that  he 
is  a  fugitive  from  such  state.30  The  executive  authority  of  a 
state  is  not  authorized  to  make  a  demand  unless  the  party  is 
charged  in  the  regular  course  of  judicial  proceedings,31  but  a 
state  has  power  to  establish  the  forms  of  proceedings  in  its  own 
courts,  subject  only  to  the  restrictions  of  the  federal  constitu- 
tion, and  in  extradition  proceedings  it  may  not  be  objected  that 
the  indictment  is  not  technically  correct,  if  it  is  substantially  ac- 
cording to  the  laws  of  the  demanding  state.32 

27  People  v.  Cross,  135  N.  Y.  536,  31  Am.  St.  Eep.  850,  32  N.  E. 
246. 

28  Lascelles  v.  Georgia,  14S  U.  S.  543,  13  S.  Ct.  689,  37  L.  ed.  549; 
State  v.  Leidigh,  47  Neb.  131,  66  N.  W.  309;  State  v.  Patterson,  116 
Mo.  515,  22  S.  W.  698. 

29  Lascelles  v.  Georgia,  148  U.  S.  543,  13  S.  Ct.  689,  37  L.  ed.  54:). 

30  Eoberts  v.  Really,  116  U.  S.  91,  6  S.  Ct.  291,  29  L.  ed.  544; 
Cook  v.  Hart,  146  U.  S.  193,  13  S.  Ct.  43,  36  L.  ed.  934;  In  re  Cook, 
49  Fed.  838;  In  re  White,  55  Fed.  57;  Ex  parte  Hart,  59  Fed.  895. 

31  Kentucky  v.   Dennison,   24  How.   104,   16  L.   ed.   717;   Ex  parte 
Powell,  20  Fla.  809;   Ex  parte  Pearce,  32  Tex.  Cr.  305,  23  S.  W.  16 
In  re  Hooper,  52  Wis.  703,  58  N.  W.  741. 

32  Ex  parte  Beggel,  114  U.  S.  651,  5  S.  Ct.  1152,  29  L.  ed.  250 
Webb  v.  New  York,  79  Fed.  622;  Barranger  v.  Baum,  103  Ga.  474,  68 
Am.  St.  Eep.  121,  30  S.  E.  528;  State  v.  Goss,  66  Minn.  293,  68  N.  W 
1090;  In  re  Van  Scicever,  42  Neb.  780,  47  Am.  St.  Eep.   734,  60   K 
W.  1039. 


583  Fugitives  from  Justice.     Art.  IV,  §  2,  CI.  2 

The  complaint  in  extradition  need  not  be  sworn  to  by  persons 
having  actual  knowledge  of  the  offense  charged.33 

The  demand  and  the  accompanying  charge  are  conclusive  of 
the  criminality  of  the  offense,34  but  the  question  whether  the 
fugitive  is  properly  charged  with  a  crime  is  one  of  law,  de- 
terminable on  habeas  corpus.35  Where  the  indictment  substan- 
tially charges  a  criminal  offense,  the  courts  will  not  go  behind  it 
nor  inquire  into  the  circumstances.36  A  copy  of  the  indictment 
authenticated  by  the  governor  of  the  demanding  state  is  con- 
clusive,37 and  the  precept  is  prima  facie  evidence  of  the  truth 
of  the  matters  recited  for  the  protection  of  the  agent.38  Where 
the  indictment  certified  as  authentic  charges  a  crime  under  the 
laws  of  the  demanding  state  a  copy  of  such  laws  need  not  be 
furnished.39  The  executive  of  the  asylum  state  may  require 
competent  proof  that  the  accused  is,  in  fact,  a  fugitive  from 
the  justice  of  the  demanding  state,40  and  it  will  always  be  pre- 
sumed that  he  insisted  upon  proof  sufficient  to  properly  inform 
himself  on  the  subject.41     Whether  an  extraditable    crime  has 

33  Rice  v.  Ames,  ISO  TJ.  S.  378,  21  S.  Ct.  406,  45  L.  ed.  577.  But  see 
Ex  parte  Spears,  83  Cal.  611,  22  Am.  St.  Rep.  342,  26  Pae.  609. 

34  Kentucky  v.  Dennison,  24  How.  99,  16  L.  ed.  717;  In  re  Leary, 
10  Ben.  208,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8162;  Morton  v.  Skinner,  48  Iud.  124;  State 
v.  Stewart,  60  Wis.  594,  50  Am.  Eep.  393,  19  N.  W.  432;  Ex  parte 
Clark,  9  Wend.  212;  People  v.  Brady,  56  N.  Y.  182. 

35  Roberts  v.  Reilly,  116  TJ.  S.  95,  6  S.  Ct.  291,  29  L.  ed.  544;  Ex 
paTte  Spears,  88  Cal.  641,  22  Am.  St.  Eep.  342,  26  Pac.  609;  Barranger 
v.  Baum,  103  Ga.  475,  6S  Am.  St.  Rep.  122,  30  S.  E.  52.8. 

36  Taylor  v.  Taintor,  16  Wall.  366,  21  L.  ed.  2S7;  Kentucky  v. 
Dennison,  24  How.  99,  16  L.  ed.  717;  Kingsbury's  Case,  106  Mass. 
223;  Brown's  Case,  112  Mass.  409,  17  Am.  Rep.  114;  In  re  Voorhees, 
32  N.  J.  L.  149;  In  re  Clark,  9  Wend.  212;  Johnson  v.  Riley,  13  Ga. 
97;  In  re  Greenough,  31  Vt.  279. 

37  Kentucky  v.  Dennison,  24  How.  66,  16  L.  ed.  717;  Taylor  v. 
Taintor,  16  Wall.  366,  21  L.  ed.  2S7;  Johnson  v.  Riley,  13  Ga.  97; 
Brown's  Case,  112  Mass.  409,  17  Am.  Rep.  114;  People  v.  Brady,  56 
N.  Y.  182;  Tn  ie  Voorhees,  32  N.  J.  L.  149;  Works  v.  Carrington,  34 
Ohio  St.  64,  32  Am.  Rep.  345;  In  re  Fetter,  3  Zab.  311,  57  Am.  Dec. 
382. 

38  Commonwealth  v.  Hall,  9  Gray,  267,  69  Am.  Dec.  2S5. 

39  Roberts  v.  Reilly,  116  U.  S.  96,  6  S.  Ct.  291,  29  L.  ed.  544. 

40  Ex  parte  Eeggel,  114  TJ.  S.  652,  5  S.  Ct.  1148,  29  L.  ed.  250. 

41  Roberts,  v.  Reilly,  116  TJ.  S.  96,  6  S.  Ct.  291,  29  L.  ed.  544. 


Art.  IV,  §  2,  01.  2     Fugitives  from  Justice.  584= 

been  committed  is  a  mixed  question  of  law  and  fact,  but  chiefly 
of  fact.42 

The  surrender  of  fugitives  to  the  state  whose  laws  have  been 
violated  is  the  only  aid  provided  by  the  United  States  laws  for 
the  punishment  of  depredations  committed  in  one  state  by  in- 
truders from  other  states.43  The  right  to  claim  the  surrender 
of  a  fugitive  can  be  carried  into  effect  only  through  the  medium 
of  laws  and  the  intervention  of  magistrates.44  The  constitu- 
tion does  not  assume  to  deal  with  the  question  of  extradition  be- 
fore the  proper  executive  demand  has  been  made,  or  undertake, 
in  the  absence  of  such  demand  to  define  the  duties  or  limit  the 
authority  of  the  state  within  which  the  fugitive  may  be  found.45 
This  clause  does  not  prohibit  a  state  from  passing  laws  for  the 
capture  of  fugitives  from  justice,46  nor  does  it  prevent  the  ar- 
rest and  detention  of  a  prisoner  until  a  formal  requisition  can 
be  made  by  the  proper  authority  in  the  .state  whence  he  ha? 
tied.47  An  escaped  fugitive  who  returns  to  the  asylum  state 
may  be  rearrested  there  on  an  alias  warrant  issued  by  the  gov- 
ernor, upon  a  credible  notice  of  the  escape,  without  new  requisi- 
tion papers.48 

Duty  to  Surrender. 


The  duty  to  surrender  a  demanded  prisoner  is  based  upon  the 
federal  constitution  and  embraces  all  crimes.49  The  constitu- 
tional provision  is  in  the  nature  of  a  treaty  between  the  states,50 

42  Ornelas  v.  Ruiz,  161  U.  S.  509,  16  S.  Ct.  689,  40  L.  ed.  787. 

43  Mahon  v.  Justice,  127  U.  S.  705,  8  S.  Ct.  124,  32  L.  ed.  283. 

44  Commonwealth  v.  Tracy,  46  Mass.  536. 

45  Ex  paTte  White,  49  Cal.  433;  Ex  parte  Cubreth,  49  Cal.  435 j 
Commonwealth  v.  Tracy,  46  Mass.  536. 

40  Ex  parte  Ammons,  34  Ohio  St.  518. 

47  Gardner's  Case,  2  Johns.  477;  Commonwealth  v.  Deacon,  10  Serg. 
&  E.  135;  Dow's  Case,  6  How.  30;  In  re  Fetter,  3  Zab.  311,  57  Am. 
Dec.  382;  State  v.  Buzine,  4  Harr.  572;  In  re  Clark,  9  Wend.  221; 
Goodhue's  Case,  1  City  H.  Rec.  153. 

48  Ex  parte  Hobbs,  32  Tex.  Cr.  312,  40  Am.  St.- Rep.  782,  22  S.  W. 
1035. 

49  People  v.  Cross,  135  N.  Y.  536,  31  Am.  St.  Rep.  850,  32  N. 
E.  246. 

50  Hibler  v.  State,  43  Tex.  203. 


585  Fugitives  from  Justice.    Art.  IV,  §  2,  CI.  2 

and  its  whole  effect  is  to  confer  on  each  member  of  the  Union 
a  right  to  demand  from  every  other  member  a  fugitive,  and  to 
make  obligatory  the  surrender  which  was  before  discretionary.51 
So  far  as  seeing  that  the  case  is  a  proper  one,  the  governor  of 
the  asylum  state  acts  judicially.52  He  represents  the  sover- 
eignty of  his  state,  and  cannot  be  compelled  to  act,  but  if  he 
does,  and  the  fugitive  is  surrendered,  the  asylum  state  cannot 
require  the  fugitive's  appearance  before  its  tribunals.53  State 
courts  cannot  control  the  executive  discretion,  nor  compel  the 
surrender  of  a  fugitive,  but  where  the  governor  has  acted  the  ac- 
tion may  be  inquired  into.54  The  governor  or  executive  author- 
ity of  the  state  or  territory  to  which  a  fugitive  is  fled  shall,  upon 
demand,  deliver  him  up,55  and  the  state  upon  which  the  de- 
mand is  made  cannot  look  behind  the  indictment  or  affidavit  in 
which  the  crime  against  the  demanding  state  is  charged.56 
Where  there  is  a  conflict  of  jurisdictions  between  the  demanding 
state  and  the  asylum  state,  as  where  the  fugitive  is  charged  also 
with  an  offense  against  the  latter,  the  surrender  may  be  post- 
poned,57 or  the  asylum  state  may  waive  its  jurisdiction  to  try 
the  accused  and  surrender  him  to  the  demanding  state.58  An 
extradited  prisoner  who  escapes  and  returns  to  the  asylum 
state  and  is  arrested  for  a  crime  committed  in  that  state  after 
his  return  may  be  held  until  the  disposition  of  the  charge  before 

51  Kentucky  v.  Dennison,  24  How.  103,  16-  L.  ed.  717;  Taylor  v. 
Taintor,  16  Wall.  370,  21  L.  ed.  287;  Matter  of  Briscoe,  51  How.  Pr. 
422;  State  v.  Schleiman,  4  Harr.  577;  State  v.  Buzine,  4  Harr.  572; 
Commonwealth  v.  Green,  17  Mass.  547;  In  re  Voorhees,  32  N.  J.  L. 
145;  In  re  Fetter,  3  Zab.  311,  57  Am.  Dec.  382;  Work  v.  Carrington, 
34  Ohio  St.  64,  32  Am.  Eep.  345;  Wyeth  v.  Richardson,  10  Gray,  240. 

52  In  re  Greenough,  31  Vt.  279. 

53  Taylor  v.  Taintor,  16  Wall.  370,  374,  21  L.  ed.  287;  In  re  Moh.-, 
73  Ala.  509,  49  Am.  Eep.  70;  Barranger  v.  Baum,  103  Ga.  474,  68 
Am.  St.  Rep.  121,  30  S.  E.  528. 

54  Ex  parte  Manchester,  5  Cal.  237;  Jones  v.  Leonard,  50  Iowa, 
110,  32  Am.  Eep.  119. 

55  Brown's  Case,  112  Mass.  409,  17  Am.  Rep.  114. 

56  Johnston  v.  Eiley,  13  Ga.  97;  In  re  Voorhees,  32  N.  J.  L.  145. 

57  TayloT  v.  Taintor,  16  Wall.  370,  374,  21  L.  ed.  287;  In  re  Bris- 
coe 51  How.  Pr.  422;  State  v.  Allen,  2  Humph.  258;  In  re  Troutman, 
4  Zab.  604. 

58  Roberts  v.  Reilly,  116  U.  S.  96,  6  S.  Ct.  291,  29  L.  ed.  544. 


Art.  IV,  §2,  CI.  2     Fugitives   feom   Justice.  586 

redelivery  under  a  second  requisition.59  The  federal  courts 
cannot  compel  the  exercise  of  comity  between  states  where  one 
state  refuses  to  exercise  it,60  and  if  a  governor  upon  whom  a 
demand  is  made  for  a  fugitive  refuses  to  discharge  his  duty 
is  no  power,  either  in  the  federal  or  state  governments,  to 
compel  action  upon  the  r  quisition.61  The  governor  may  ef- 
fectively revoke  his  extradition  warrant  at  any  time  before  the 
prisoner  is  removed  from  the  state.62 

The  states  may  pass  laws  auxiliary  to  the  provisions  of  the 
constitution,63  and  a  law  intended  as  an  aid  to  the  enforcement 
of  an  act  of  Congress  relative  to  the  surrender  of  fugitives  is 
valid;64  e.  g.,  a  law  authorizing  the  arrest  of  a  fugitive  from 
justice  before  a  formal  demand  for  his  surrender  has  been  made, 
and  his  detention  for  a  reasonable  time  to  afford  an  opportunity 
for  such  demand.65  A  law  requiring  the  arresting  officer  to  take 
his  prisoner  before  the  nearest  judge  for  identification  is  valid,66 
as  is  a  law  which  makes  it  the  duty  of  the  executive  to  issue  the 
warrant 'upon  a  proper  requisition.67     Congress  has  the  power 

59  Ex  parte  Hobbs,  32  Tex.  Cr.  312,  40  Am.  St.  Rep.  782,  22  S. 
W.  1035. 

60  Mahon  v.  Justice,  127  U.  S.  706,  8  S.  Ct.  1204.  32  L.  eel.  283. 

61  Kentucky  v.  Dennison,  24  How.  107,  16  L.  ed.  717;  Taylor  v. 
Tain  tor,  16  Wall.  370,  21  L.  ed.  2S7;  Work  v.  Carrington,  34  Ohio  St. 
73,  32  Am.  Eep.  350;  Ex  parte  Manchester,  5  Cal.  237. 

62  State  v.  Toole,  69  Minn.  104.  65  Am.  St.  Rep.  553,  72  N.  W.  53. 

63  Holmes  v.  Jennison,  14  Pet.  540,  10  L.  ed.  579;  Moore  v.  Illinois, 
14  How.  21,  14  L.  ed.  306;  In  re  Romaine,  23  Cal.  585;  Ex  parte 
Cubreth,  49  Cal.  436;  Ex  parte  Rosenblatt,  51  Cal.  285;  Robinson  v. 
Flanders,  29  Ind.  10;  Ex  parte  Smith,  3  McLean,  121,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
12,968;  Commonwealth  v.  Hall.  9  Gray,  262,  69  Am.  Dec.  285;  Com- 
monwealth v.  Tracy,  46  Mass.  536. 

64  Commonwealth  v.  Hall,  9  Gray,  262,  69  Am.  Dec.  285. 

65  Ex  parte  Cubreth,  49  Cal.  436;  Ex  parte  White,  49  Cal.  434; 
Dow's  Case,  6  Harr.  39;  State  v.  Bnzine,  4  Harr.  572;  Goodhue's 
Case,  1  Wheel.  C.  C.  427;  Gardner's  Case,  2  Johns.  477;  Common- 
wealth v.  Wilson,  Phila.  SO;  Commonwealth  v.  Deacon,  10  Serg.  &  R. 
135;  In  re  Fetter,  3  Zab.  311,  57  Am.  Dec.  3S2;  People  v.  Schenek, 
2  Johns.  479;  People  v.  Wright,  2  Caines,  213;  Ex  parte  Hey  ward, 
1   Sandf.  701;   Ex  parte  Ammons,  34  Ohio  St.  518. 

66  Robinson  v.  Flanders.  29  Ind.  10. 

67  Ex  parte  Smith,  3  McLean,  121,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,96S. 


5S7  Fugitives  from  Justice.     Art.  IV,  §  2,  CI.  2 

to  invest  a  national  officer  with  authority  to  cause  the  arrest  and 
to  surrender  the  fugitive  upon  demand  duly  made.68 

This  clause  has  no  reference  to  the  delivery  to  foreign  nations 
of  fugitives  from  justice;  the  power  to  surrender  fugitives  to 
foreign  governments  belongs  to  the  federal  government  exclu- 
sively, (1)  because  it  is  included  in  the  treaty-making  power 
which  was  surrendered  by  the  states  and  forbidden  by  the  con- 
stitution, and  (2)  because  its  exercise  by  the  states  would  be  in- 
compatible with  its  exercise  by  the  national  government.69 
Even  in  the  absence  of  a  treaty  or  an  act  of  Congress  a  state  can- 
not negotiate  with  a  foreign  government  regarding  the  surrender 
of  fugitives,70  and  a  state  statute  providing  for  the  surrender 
of  foreign  fugitives  is  void.71 

Eights  of  Accused. 


When  a  fugitive  from  justice  has  been  surrendered  by  the 
governor  of  the  state  in  which  he  was  found,  the  regularity  of 
the  proceeding  cannot  be  questioned  on  the  trial;72  but  on  the 
proceedings  for  extradition  he  is  entitled  to  insist  upon  proof, 
before  the  governor  of  the  asylum  state,  that  he  was  within  the 
demanding  state  at  the  time  of  the  alleged  crime,  and  subse- 
quently withdrew  therefrom.73  Whenever  a  state  executive 
causes  the  arrest  of  a  fugitive  from  another  state,  on  demand  of 
its  governor,  the  prisoner  is  held  under  color  of  federal  law,  and 
may  test  the  legality  of  the  arrest  by  habeas  corpus  in  the  state 
or  federal  courts.74  Whether  the  accused  was  properly  charged 
with  crime  is  a  question  of  law  open  in  habeas  corpus  proceed- 

68  In  re  Too rhees,  32   N.  J.   L.   145. 

69  Holmes  v.  Jennison,  14  Pet.  571,  10  L.  ed.  579;  In  re  Kaine,  14 
How.  103,  14  L.  ed.  345;  In  re  Washburn,  4  Johns,  Ch.  106;  Common- 
wealth v.  Green,  17  Mass.  546;  Commonwealth  v.  Deacon,  10  Serg,. 
&  E.  125;  People  v.  Curtis,  50  N.  Y.  325,  10  Am.  Eep.  486. 

70  United  States  v.  Eauscher,  119  U.  S.  412,  7  S.  Ct.  237,  30  L. 
ed  425. 

71  People  v.  Curtis,  50  N.  Y.  325,  10  Am.  Eep.  486. 

72  Ker  v.  Illinois,  119    U.  S.  441,  7  S.  Ct.  225,  30  L.  ed.  421. 

73  Ex  parte  Keggely  114  U.  S.  651,  5  S.  Ct.  1148,  29  L.  ed.  250;  Tn 
re  White,  55  Fed.  58;  State  v.  Hall,  115  N.  C.  814,  44  Am.  St.  Eep. 
503,  20  S.  E.  730,  28  L.  E.  A.  289. 

74  Eoberts  v.  Eeilly,  116  U.  S.  95,  6  S.  Ct.  291,  29  L.  ed.  544. 


Art.  IV,  §  2,  CI.  2    Fugitives  from  Justice.  588 

ings,75  and  in  such  a  proceeding  a  state  court  may  determine 
whether  the  arrest  and  delivery  of  the  accused  to  the  agent  of 
the  demanding  state  conformed  to  the  statutes  of  the  United 
States.76  The  courts  of  the  asylum  state  cannot  consider  the 
technical  sufficiency  of  the  indictment  or  the  constitutionality  of 
the  laws  under  which  it  was  brought,  but  only  the  prerequisites 
for  requisition;77  it  is  only  required  that  the  indictment  be  sub- 
stantially in  accordance  with  the  laws  of  the  demanding  state.78 
The  accused  is  not  entitled  to  have  the  question  of  his  guilt  or 
innocence'  inquired  into.79 

A  fugitive  surrendered  by  a  state  for  trial  in  another  state 
does  not,  in  his  person,  bear  the  sovereignty  of  the  surrendering 
state,  and  extradition,  lawfully  obtained  subjects  the  fugitive  to 
trial  for  an  offense  other  than  that  charged  in  the  requisition.80 
Nor  is  an  extradited  prisoner  exempt  from  civil  prosecution  in 
the  demanding  state  while  in  custody  for  the  offense  for  which 
he  was  returned.81  A  person  indicted  in  one  state  and  by  force, 
fraud  or  deceit  taken  into  that  state  from  another,  is  not  en- 
titled to  his  discharge  because  of  such  unlawful  abduction,82 

75  Roberts  v.  Reilly,  116  U.  S.  95,  6  S.  Ct.  291,  29  L.  ed.  544;  Ex 
parte  Spears,  88  Cal.  641,  22  Am.  St.  Kep.  342,  26  Pac.  609;  Barranger 
v.  Baum,  103  Ga.  475,  68  Am.    St.  Eep.  122,  30  S.  E.  528. 

76  Kobb  v.  Connolly,  111  U.  S.  639,  4  S.  Ct.  544,  28  L.  ed.  54a. 

77  Pearce  v.  Texas,  155  U.  S.  313,  15  S.  Ct.  116,  39  L.  ed.  164. 

78  Ex  parte  Eeggel,  114  U.  S.  651,  5  S.  Ct.  1148,  29  L.  ed.  250;  Brown 
v.  New  Jersey,  175  U.  S.  175,  20  S.  Ct.  77,  44  L."ed.  119;  Ex  parte 
Dawson,  83  Fed.  30S;  Kurtz  v.  State,  22  Fla.  43,  1  Am.  St.  Kep.  176; 
Barranger  v.  Baum,  103  Ga.  475,  68  Am.  St.  Rep.  122,  30  S.  E.  528. 

79  In  re  White,  55  Fed.  58. 

80  Lascelles  v.  Georgia,  148  U.  S.  543,  546,  13  S.  Ct.  687,  37  L. 
ed.  549;  affirming  90  Ga.  366,  35  Am.  St.  Rep.  222,  16  S.  E.  947; 
Price  v.  M'Carty,  89  Fed.  87,  59  U.  S.  App.  584;  Carr  v.  State,  104 
Ala.  13,  16  South.  153;  State  v.  Patterson,  116  Mo.  515,  22  S.  W.  698; 
State  v.  Walker,  119  Mo.  469,  24  S.  W.  1011;  Commonwealth  v. 
Wright,  158  Mass.  149,  35  Am.  St.  Rep.  475,  33  N.  E.  82,  19  L.  R. 
A.  206. 

81  Reid  v.  Ham,  54  Minn.  305,  40  Am.  St.  Rep.  333,  56  N.  W.  35, 
21  L.  R.  A.  232. 

82  Mahon  v.  Justice,  127  TJ.  S.  707,  8  S.  Ct.  1204,  32  L.  ed.  283. 
But  see  In  re  Robinson,  29  Neb.  135,  26  Am.  St.  Rep.  378,  45  N.  W. 
67,  8  L.  R.  A.  398. 


589  Fugitives  from  Justice.     Art.  IV,  §  2,  CI.  2 

and  a  prisoner  voluntarily  accompanying  the  officer  into  the 
state  where  he  has  been  indicted  cannot  afterward  object  that 
the  proper  requisition  was  not  made.S3  But  it  has  been  held 
that  the  arrest  of  a  person  upon  telegraphic  notification  from 
another  state  reciting  that  a  warrant  and  proper  papers  have 
been  issued  is  unauthorized,  and  he  is  entitled  to  his  discharge 
on  habeas  corpus.84  Where  it  is  necessary  to  pass  through  an- 
other state  in  taking  a  prisoner  from  the  place  where  he  was 
convicted  to  the  penitentiary,  he  is  not  entitled  to  his  release  on 
habeas  corpus  while  in  such  other  state,  on  the  theory  that  he 
is  illegally  detained  as  a  fugitive  from  justice.85 

83  State  v.  Cutshall,  109  N.  C.  764,  26  Am.  St.  Eep.  599,  14  S.  E. 
107. 

84  Simmons  v.   Van   Dyke,  138  Ind.  380,  46  Am.   St.  Rep.  411,   37 
N.  E.  973,  26  L.  R.  A.  33. 

85  In  re  Maney,  20  Wash.  509,  72  Am.  St.  Rep.  130,  55  Pae.  930. 


Art.  IV,  §  2, 01.  3  Fugitive  Slaves.  590 

3.  No  person  held  to  service  or  labor  in  one  State, 
under  the  laws  thereof,  escaping  into  another,  shall,  in 
consequence  of  any  law  or  regulation  therein,  be  dis- 
charged from  such  service  or  labor,  but  shall  be  deliv- 
ered up  on  claim  of  the  party  to  whom  such  service  or 
labor  may  be  due. 

Object  of  Clause. 

The  object  of  this  provision  was  to  secure  to  the  citizens  of  the 
slave-holding  states  the  complete  ownership  in  their  slaves  as 
property,  in  every  state  in  the  Union  to  which  they  might  escape 
from  the  state  where  they  were  held  in  servitude;  without  it 
every  nonslave-holding  state  would  have  been  at  liberty  to  de- 
clare free  all  runaway  slaves  coming  within  their  limits.1  It 
contemplated  the  existence  of  a  positive,  unqualified  right  on  the 
part  of  the  owner  of  the  slave,  which  no  state  law  could  in  any 
way  qualify,  regulate,  control  or  restrain.2  The  states  could  not 
be  compelled  to  enforce  the  provision  for  surrender  in  the  ab- 
sence of  positive  legislation  on  the  part  of  Congress,  and  the 
power  to  enact  such  legislation  was  given  to  Congress  exclu- 
sively ;3  but  the  courts  recognized  the  power  of  the  states  to  en- 
act police  regulations  providing  for  the  arrest  and  detention  of 
fugitive  slaves  so  long  as  they  did  not  conflict  with  acts  of  Con- 
gress.4 So  an  act  making  the  harboring  of  a  fugitive  slave  a 
punishable  offense  was  declared  not  to  be  objectionable  merely 
because  the  same  act  was  penalized  by  the  acts  of  Congress.5 
The  acts  of  Congress  upon  this  subject  were  clearly  constitu- 

1  Prigg  v.  Commonwealth,  16  Pet.  611,  612,  10  L.  ed.  1060;  Osbora 
v.  Nicholson,  13  Wall.  662,  20  L.  ed.  689;  Buckner  v.  Street,  1  Dili. 
254,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2098;  McElvain  v.  Mudd,  44  Ala.  52,  4  Am.  Rep. 
108;  Henderlite  v.  Thurman,  22  Gratt.  469,  12  Am.  Rep.  528. 

2  Prigg  v.  Commonwealth,  16  Pet.  612,  10  L.  ed.  1060. 

3  Prigg  v.  Commonwealth,  16  Pet.  622,  10  L.  ed.  1060;  Jones  v. 
Van  Zandt,  5  How.  215,  12  L.  ed.  122;  Tn  re  Martin,  2  Paine,  348, 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  9154;  In  re  Susan,  2  Wheel.  C.  C.  594. 

4  In  re  Perkins,  2  Cal.  432;  Freeman  v.  Robinson,  7  Ind.  323;  la 
re  Booth,  3  Wis.  125. 

5  Moore  v.  Illinois.  14  How.  20,  21,  14  L.  ed.  306.  And  see  Prigg 
v.  Commonwealth,  16  Pet.  625,  10  L.  ed.  1060. 


591  Fugitive   Slaves.  Art.  IV,  §  2,  CI.  3 

tional.6  The  constitution  and  laws  did  not  confer,  but  merely 
secured,  the  right  to  reclaim  slaves  which  were  recognized  as  the 
subject  of  property.7  The  constitution,  by  this  clause,  recog- 
nized as  plenary  and  exclusive  the  power  of  the  states  as  to  the 
status  of  slaves  within  their  territory,  subject  to  the  express 
] imitation  in  the  case  of  slaves  fleeing  from  service.7 a 

Construction  of  Terms. 


The  "persons"  referred  to  were  African  slaves,s  but  the  term 
was  not  intended  to  embrace  slaves  voluntarily  carried  by  their 
masters  into  free  states.9  The  words  "in  one  state"  extend  to 
the  territories,  the  District  of  Columbia,  and  the  Indian  terri- 
tory.10 "Shall  be  delivered  up"  contemplated  summary  and  in- 
formal proceedings,11  and  the  word  "claim"  was  given  its  or- 
dinary legal  meaning,  viz.,  a  demand  of  some  matter  as  of  right 
made  by  one  person  upon  another  to  do  or  to  forbear  some  act 

6  Prigg  v.  Commonwealth,  5  How.  230,  10  L.  ed.  1060;  Jones  v. 
Van  Zandt,  5  How.  229,  12  L.  ed.  122;  Ableman  v.  Booth,  21  How. 
526,  16  L.  ed.  169;  Sim 'a  Case,  7  Gush.  301;  Johnson  v.  Tompkins, 
Baldw.  571,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7416;  Hill  v.  Low,  4  Wash.  C.  C.  326,  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  6494;  Glenn  v.  Hodges,  9  Johns.  67;  Commonwealth  v.  Aves, 
18  Pick.  215;  Jack  v.  Martin,  12  Wend.  311;  Wright  v.  Deacon,  5 
Serg.  &  E.  62. 

7  Ableman  v.  Booth,  21  How.  526,  16  L.  ed.  169;  Johnson  v.  Tomp- 
kins, Baldw.  571,  Fed.  Gas.  No.  7416;  The  Fugitive  Slave  Law,  1 
Blatchf.  635,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,261;  Giltner  v.  Gorham,  4  McLean, 
402,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5453;  Sim's  Case,  7  Cush.  285. 

7a  Groves  v.  Slaughter,  15  Pet.  449,  10  L.  ed.  800;  Moore  v.  Illinois, 
14  How.  20,  14  L.  ed.  306;  Lemmon  v.  People,  20  N.  Y.  566. 

8  Dred  Scott  v.  Samlford,  19  How.  393,  15  L.  ed.  691;  Lemmon  7. 
People,  20  N.  Y.  624. 

9  Strader  v.  Graham.  10  How.  82,  13  L.  ed.  337;  Vaughan  v.  Will- 
iams, 3  McLean,  530,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,903;  Miller  v.  McQuerry,  5 
McLean,  469,  Fed.  Ca?.  No.  9583;  Butler  v.  Hopper,  1  Wash.  C.  C.  499, 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  2241;  In  re  Perkins,  2  Cal.  424;  Kauffman  v.  Oliver, 
10  Pa.  St.  517. 

10  Anonymous,  3  Opin.  Atty.  Gen.  370;  Anonymous,  6  Opin.  Atty. 
Gen.  302,  304. 

11  Prigg  v.  Commonwealth,  16  Pet.  667,  10  L.  ed.  1060;  Jack  v. 
Martin,  14  Wend.  507;  Sim's  Case,  61  Mass.  285;  Wright  v.  Deacon, 
5  Serg.  &  B.  62. 


Art.  IV,  §  2,  CI.  3  Fugitive  Slaves.  592 

as  a  matter  of  duty.12  The  "notice"  prescribed  by  the  fugitive 
slave  law  in  order  to  fix  the  liability  of  the  person  harboring  the 
fugitive  was  not  required  to  be  in  writing;  any  manner  of  im- 
parting the  information  contemplated  was  deemed  sufficient.13 
Any  overt  act  intended  and  calculated  to  elude  the  owner's  vigi- 
lance was  a  "harboring  and  concealing"  within  the  statute.14 

12  Prigg  v.  Commonwealth,  16  Pet.  615,  10  L.  ed.  1060. 

13  Jones  v.  Van  Zandt,  5  How.  225,  12  L.  ed.  122. 

14  Jones  v.  Van  Zandt,  5  How.  227,  12  L.  ed.  122. 


J93  New  States.  Art.  IV,  §  3,  CI.  1 


SECTION"  3. 

NEW  STATES.      TERRITORIES. 

1.  Admission  of. 

2.  Power  of  United  States  over  Territorial  and  other  property. 

1.  New  States  may  be  admitted  by  the  Congress 
into  this  Union;  but  no  new  State  shall  be  formed  or 
erected  within  the  jurisdiction  of  any  other  State;  nor 
any  State  be  formed  by  the  junction  of  two  or  more 
States,  or  parts  of  States,  without  the  consent  of  the 
legislatures  of  the  States  concerned  as  well  as  of  the 
Congress. 

Construction  of  Clause. 

This  clause  refers  to  and  includes  new  states  to  be  formed 
out  of  territory  yet  to  be  acquired,  as  well  as  that  already  ceded 
to  the  United  States.1  New  states  when  admitted  have  equal 
sovereignty  with  the  older  ones,  and  are  entitled  to  all  the  rights 
of  jurisdiction  and  eminent  domain  which  the  original  states 
possessed,2  whether  such  equality  be  stipulated  for  in  the  act  of 
admission  or  not,3  and  this  admission  on  an  equal  footing  in- 
volves the  adoption  as  citizens  of  the  United  States  of  those 
whom  Congress  recognizes  as  members  of  the  political  commun- 
ity, and  who  are  recognized  as   such  in  the   formation  of   the 

1  Dred  Scott  v.  Sandford,  19  How.  612,  15  L.  ed.  691. 

2  Pollard's  Lessee  v.  Hagan,  3  How.  223,  11  L.  ed.  565;  Permoli 
v.  First  Municipality,  3  How.  609,  11  L.  ed.  739;  McKinney  v.  Saviego, 
18  How.  240,  15  L.  ed.  365;  Cummings  v.  Missouri,  4  Wall.  319,  18  L. 
ed.  356;  Sands  v.  Manistee  River  Imp.  Co.,  123  U.  S.  296,  8  S.  Ct. 
113,  31  L.  ed.  149;  Ward  v.  Race  Horse,  163  U.  S.  514,  16  S.  Ct.  107o, 
41  L.  ed.  244;  Wallamet  Br.  Co.  v.  Hatch,  9  Saw.  652,  19  Fed. 
353;  State  v.  Board,  76  Wis.  207,  20  Am.  St.  Rep.  58,  44  N.  W.  977; 
People  v.  United  States,  93  111.  35,  34  Am.  Rep.  157. 

3  Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Illinois,  146  U.  S.  434,  13  S.  Ct.  110, 
36  L.  ed.  1018. 

Xotes  on  Constitution — 38 


Art.  IV,  §  3,  CI.  1  New  States.  594 

new  state.4  When,  also,  a  state  enters  the  Union  it  is  solemnly 
pledged  to  the  other  states  to  support  the  constitution  as  it  is, 
in  all  its  provisions,  until  altered  in  the  manner  which  the  con- 
stitution itself  provides,4*  and  she  cannot,  by  a  compact  with 
the  United  States,  enlarge  or  diminish  her  constitutional  rights 
or  liabilities.8 

Power  of  Congress. 


Congress  is  vested  with  the  sole  power  of  admitting  new 
states  into  the  Union,6  but  the  concurrence  of  both  federal  and 
state  governments  is  required  to  effect  the  transfer  of  records 
from  the  old  to  the  new  government.7  Stipulations  imposed  by 
Congress  as  conditions  upon  which  a  new  state  will  be  admitted 
may  be  effectual  as  a  regulation  of  commerce  or  other  exercise 
of  a  conditional  grant  of  power.8  But  a  provision  granting 
municipal  rights  of  sovereignty  would  be  void  and  inoperative.9 
If  Congress,  upon  the  application  of  a  territory,  consents  to  ad- 
mit it  as  a  state  upon  condition  that  certain  alterations  in  the 
proposed  constitution  be  made,  such  alterations,  when  accepted, 
become  a  part  of  the  state  constitution.10  When  a  condition  an- 
nexed to  a  state  constitution  is  legally  and  formally  rescinded, 
the  powers  disclaimed  in  the  condition  may  be  resumed  and  im- 
mediately exercised  by  the  state  authorities.11  The  power  to  ac- 
quire territory  by  conquest  or  treaty  is  incidental  to  the  absolute 
grants  of  power  to  make  war  and  to  make  treaties.12 

4  Boyd  v.  Nebraska,  143  TJ.  S.  170,  12  S.  Ct.  375,  36  L.  ed.  103. 
4a  Ableman  v.  Booth,  21  How.   525,  16  L.  ed.  169. 

5  Pollard's  Lessee  v.  Hagan,  3  How.  229,  11  L.  ed.  565;  Wallamet 
Br.  Co.  v.  Hatch,  9  Saw.  652,  19  Fed.  353. 

c  Brittle  v.  People,  2  Neb.  198. 

7  Benner  v.  Porter,  9  How.  246,  13  L.  ed.  119 

8  Pollard's  Lessee  v.  Hagan,  3  How.  229,  11  L.  ed.  565. 

9  Pollard's  Lessee  v.  Hagan,  3  How.  229,  11  L.  ed.  565;  Strader 
v.  Graham,  10  How.  82,  13  L.  ed.  337;  Depew  v.  Trustees,  5  Ind.  8. 

10  Brittle  v.  People,  2  Neb.  198. 

li   Duke  v.  Navigation  Co.,  10  Ala.  82,  44  Am.  Dec.  472. 

12  American  Ins.  Co.  v.  Cotton,  1  S.  Ct.  542,  7  L.  ed.  242;  Sere 
v.  Pitot,  6  Cr.  336,  3  L.  ed.  240;  Fleming  v.  Page,  9  How.  614,  13  L. 
ed.  276;  Cross  v.  Harrison,  16  How.  189,  14  L.  ed.  889;  Dred  Scoct 
t.   Sandford,   19    How.   3S5,   15    L.   ed.   691.     See,   also,  Worcester   v. 


595  New  States.  Art.  IV,  §  3,  CI.  1 

The  consent  of  the  legislatures  of  the  states  in  the  cases  pro- 
vided for  -by  this  clause  may  be  given  upon  conditions  which, 
if  accepted,  are  binding  upon  the  general  government.13 

Effect  of  Admission. 


By  the  admission  of  a  territory  as  a  state,  the  territorial  gov- 
ernment and  all  authority  under  it  ceases  to  exist,3  4  and  unless 
otherwise  declared  by  Congress,  title  to  every  species  of  property 
owned  by  the  territory  passes  to  the  state.15  The  acceptance  of 
a  new  state  operates  to  vest  in  its  government  the  title  to  lands 
below  high- water  mark  on  navigable  waters,16  and  the  disclaimer 
of  a  new  state,  as  a  condition  of  admission,  to  all  unappropriated 
public  lands  does  not  include  land  beneath  tide  water  and  navi- 
gable streams.17  The  jurisdiction  of  the  territorial  courts 
ceases  upon  the  creation  of  a  territory  into  a  state,  and  there- 
after there  is  no  jurisdiction  in  federal  cases  until  Congress  ex- 
tends the  judicial  power  over  the  state,18  and  when  this  has 
been  done  cases  pending  at  the  time  of  admission  may  be  re- 
moved to  the  federal  courts  if  of  a  proper  character.19  The 
ordinance  of  1787  ceased  to  operate  in  a  state  formed  out  of 
the  old  Northwest  Territory,  unless  re-enacted  by  such  state.20 

Georgia,  6  Pet.  515,  8  L.  ed.  483;  New  Orleans  v.  De  Xrmas,  9  Pet. 
224,  9  L.  ed.  109;  Holden  v.  Joy,  17  Wall.  211,  21  L.  ed.  523. 

13  Pollard's  Lessee  v.  Hagan,  3  How.  223,  11  L.  ed.  565. 

14  McNulty  v.  Batty,  10  How.  78.  13  L.  ed.  333. 

15  Brown  v.  Grant,  116  U.  S.  212,  6  S.  Ct.  357,  29  L.  ed.  598. 

16  Mobile  v.  Emanuel,  1  How.  100,  11  L.  ed.  60;  Weber  v.  Boar.! 
of  Harbor  Commissioners,  18  Wall.  66,  21  L.  ed.  798;  Willamette  Iron 
Br.  Co.  v.  Hatch,  125  U.  S.  12,  8  S.  Ct.  811,  31  L.  ed.  629;  Knight  v. 
United  States  Land  Assn.,  142  U.  S.  183,  12  S.  Ct.  258,  35  L.  ed. 
974;  Shively  v.  Bowlby,  152  U.  S.  26,  14  S.  Ct.  548,  38  L.  ed.  331. 

17  Mann  v.  Tacoma  Land  Co.,  153  U.  S.  284,  14  S.  Ct.  820,  38  L. 
ed.  714. 

18  Benner  v.  Porter,  9  How.  243,  13  L.  ed.  119;  McNulty  v.  Batty, 
10  How.  78,  13  L.  ed.  333;  Freeborn  v.  Smith,  2  Wall.  175,  17  L.  ed. 
922. 

19  Glaspell  v.  Northern  Pac.  E.  E.  Co.,  144  U.  S.  219,  12  S.  Ct. 
593,  36  L.  ed.  409. 

20  Permoli  v.  First  Municipality,  3  How.  610,  11  L.  ed.  739;  Stradei- 
v.  Graham,  10  How.  82,  13  L.  ed.  337;  Escandaba  Co.  v.  Chicago, 
107  IT.  S.  688,  2  S.  Ct.  185,  27  L.  ed.  442;  Van  Brocklin  v.  Tennessee, 
117  U.  S.  159,  6  S.  Ct.  670,  29  L.  ed.  845;  Huse  v.  Glover,  119  U.  S. 
546,  7  S.  Ct.  313,  30  L.  ed.  487;  Sands  v.  Manistee  Eiver  Imp.  Co., 
123  U.  S.  296,  8  S.  Ct.  113,  31  L.  ed.  149. 


Art.  IV,  §  3,  CI.  2  Public  Lands.  596 

2.  The  Congress  shall  have  power  to  dispose  of  and 
make  all  needful  rules  and  regulations  respecting  the 
territory  or  other  property  belonging  to  the  United 
States;  and  nothing  in  this  Constitution  shall  be  so 
construed  as  to  prejudice  any  claims  of  the  United 
States,  or  of  any  particular  State. 

Construction  of  Clause. 

The  term  "territory"  as  used  in  this  provision  is  equivalent  to 
the  word  "lands,"1  and  the  words  "respecting  the  territory"  re- 
fer only  to  the  territory  owned  hy  the  United  States  at  the  time 
of  the  adoption  of  the  constitution,2  subsequently  acquired 
property  being  subject  to  the  legislation  of  Congress  as  an  in- 
cident to  its  ownership.3  "To  dispose  of"  means  to  make  sales 
of  the  lands,  or  otherwise  to  raise  money  from  them,4  and  "need- 
ful rules"  comprehends  all  appropriate  legislation,5  including 
the  passage  of  all  laws  necessary  to  secure  the  rights  of  the 
United  States  to  the  public  lands,  to  provide  for  their  sale,  and 
to  protect  them  from  taxation.6 

Power  of  Congress. 

As  stated,  the  term  "territory"  is  equivalent  to  the  word 
"lands,"  and  congressional  authority  over  territories,  as  such,  re- 
sults' from  the  ownership  of  the  country  and  the  right  of  exclu- 
sive sovereignty  which  can  exist  only  in  the  national  govern- 
ment, rather  than  from  the  grant  of  power  by  this  clause  to  dis- 
pose of  and  regulate  the  territory  of  the  United  States.7  Con- 
gress has  the  sole  power  to  make  the  necessary  rules  and  regu- 
lations respecting  public  lands,  without  interference  on  the  part 
of  state  or  territorial  governments.8     Congress  has  jurisdiction 

1  United  States  v.  Gratiot,  14  Pet.  537,  10  L.  ed.  573. 

2  Dred  Scott  v.  Sandford,  19  How.  442,  15  L.  ed.  691. 

3  American  Ins.  Co.  v.  Cotton,  1  Pet.  543,  7  L.  ed.  242. 

4  Dred  Scott  v.  Sandford,  19  How.  615,  15  L.  ed.  691. 

5  Dred  Scott  v.  Sandford,  19  How.  615,  15  L.  ed.  691. 

6  Pollard's  Lessee  v.  Hagan,  3  How.  212,  11  L.  ed.  565. 

7  LTnitcd  states  v.  Kagama,  118  U.  S.  380,  6  S.  Ct.  1109,  30  L.  ed. 
228. 

8  Jourdan  v.  Barrett,  4  How.  185,  11  L.  ed.  924;  Wilcox  v.  Jack- 


597  Public  Lands.  Art.  IV,  §  3,  CI.  2 

over  such  lands  irrespective  of  their  situs,9  and  the  admission 
of  a  territory  as  a  state  does  not  destroy  the  power  of  Congress 
over  public  lands  within  the  limits  of  the  new  state.10  The 
power  of  Congress  in  disposing  of  the  public  lands  is  not  limited 
to  sale,  but  includes  the  power  to  lease;11  but  all  dispositions  of 
public  lands  must  be  by  Congress  or  by  its  authority.12  A  mili- 
tary officer  at  the  head  of  a  provisional  government  has  no  au- 
thority to  make  a  grant  of  public  lands.13 

Congress  has  the  absolute  right  to  prescribe  the  times,  condi- 
tions, and  modes  of  transfer  of  the  public  domain  and  to  whom 
transfers  shall  be  made,14  and  it  has  the  sole  power  to  declare 
the  dignity  and  effect  of  titles  emanating  from  the  United 
States;15  and  when  an  act  of  Congress  makes  a  patent  necessary 
to  complete  a  title,  no  state  can  make  anything  else  evidence  of 
title,16  nor  can  a  state  pass  a  law  depriving  a  patentee  of  the 
possession  of  land  because  of  the  delay  in  the  transfer  of  title 
after  the  initiation  of  proceedings  for  its  acquisition.17  So, 
also,  Congress  may  provide  that  all  transfers  and  contracts  re- 
lating to  public  land,  made  before  patent  issues,  shali  be  void,18 
and  may  dispose  of  lands  as  homesteads  secured  from  execution 

son,  13  Pet.  516,  10  L.  ed.  264;  United  States  v.  Fitzgerald,  15  Pet. 
421,  10  L.  ed.  785;  Irvine  v.  Marshall,  20  How.  563,  15  L.  ed.  994; 
Gibson  v.  Chouteau,  13  Wall.  99,  20  L.  ed.  534;  Kissell  v.  St.  Louis 
Public  Schools,  18  How.  24,  15  L.  ed.  324. 

9  Irvine  v.  Marshall,  20  How.  563,  15  L.  ed.  994. 

io  Camfield  v.  United  States,  167  U.  S.  526,  17  S.  Ct.  864,  42  L. 
ed.  260. 

li   United  States  v.  Gratiot,  14  Pet.  526,  10  L.  ed.  573. 

12  Seabury  v.  Field,  1  Me  All.  1,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,574;  United  States 
v.  Fitzgerald,  15  Pet.  407,  10  L.  ed.  785;  United  States  v.  Nicol,  1 
Paine,  646,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,879;  McConnell  v.  "Wilcox,  2  111.  344. 

13  Seabury  v.  Field,  1  McAll.  1,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,574. 

14  Irvine  v.  Marshall,  20  How.  558,  15  L.  ed.  994;  Gibson  v.  Chou- 
teau, 13  Wall.  92,  20  L.  ed.  534. 

15  Bagnell  v.  Broderick,  13  Pet.  450,  10  L.  ed.  235;  Langdon  v. 
Sherwood,  124  U.  S.  85,  8  S.  Ct.  429,  31  L.  ed.  344;  Emblen  v.  Lin- 
coln Land  Co.,  102  Fed.  559. 

16  Wilcox  v.  Jackson,  13  Pet.  498,  10  L.  ed.  264. 

17  Gibson  v.  Chouteau,  13  Wall.  92,  20  L.  ed.  534. 

18  Van  Dyke  v.  McVey,  16  111.  41;  Kose  v.  Buckland,  17  111.  309. 


Art.  IV,  §3,  CI.  2  Territories.  598 

for  debt  prior  to  the  issue  of  patents.19  Congress  has  the  power 
to  dispose  of  the  public  lands  for  such  purposes  as  in  its  judg- 
ment will  best  subserve  the  public  interest,20  and  it  alone  has 
power  to  make  and  authorize  appropriations  of  public  lands.21 
A  provision  that  claims  for  land  shall  be  filed  within  a  speci- 
fied time,  and  that  if  they  are  not  so  filed,  they  shall  be  barred, 
is  within  the  power  of  Congress.22  This  clause  does  not  confer 
on  Congress  any  power  to  dispose  of  the  shores  of  navigable 
waters  or  the  soil  under  such  waters  within  a  state.23 

Jurisdiction  Over  Territories. 


The  power  of  governing  a  territory  of  the  United  States, 
which  has  not  by  becoming  a  state  acquired  the  means  of  self- 
government,  belongs  to  the  United  States  to  the  fullest  extent.24 
As  the  owner  of  such  a  territory,  the  national  government  has 
supreme  power  over  it  and  its  inhabitants,25  and  its  dominion  is 
entire  so  long  as  the  territory  continues  to  be  such;26  it  is  the 
inevitable  consequence  of  the  power  to  acquire  and  own.27 

In  the  exercise  of  its  plenary  power  over  the  public  domain, 
Congress  may  establish  territorial  governments  and  invest  them 
with  powers  of  legislation.28  The  government  of  the  territories 
belongs  primarily  to  Congress,  secondarily,  to  such  agencies  as 
Congress  may  establish  for  that  purpose;29  they  must  be  gov- 

19  Miller  v.  Little,  47  Cal.  348;   Russell  v.  Lowth,  21  Mi   <i.  167, 

18  Am.  Eep.  389;  Gile  v.  Hallock,  33  Wis.  523. 

20  Homestead  Co.  v.  Valley  E.  R.  Co.,  17  Wall.  166,  21  L.  ed.  622. 

21  United  States  v.  Fitzgerald,  15  Pet.  421,  10  L.  ed.  785. 

22  Strother  v.  Lucas,  12  Pet.  448,  9  L.  ed.  1137;  Van  Brocklin  v. 
Tennessee,  117  U.  S.  168,  6  S.  Ct.  670,  29  L.  ed.  845. 

23  Pollard's  Lessee  v.  Hagan,  3  How.  212,  11  L.  ed.  565. 

24  American  Ins.  Co.  v.  Cotton,  1  Pet.  543,  7  L.  ed.  242. 

25  Late  Corporation  etc.  v.  United  States,  136  U.  S.  44,  10  S.  Ct. 
792,  34  L.  ed.  478. 

26  Shively  v.  Bowlby,  152  U.  S.  48,  14  S.  Ct.  548,  38  L.  ed.  331. 

27  American  Ins.  Co.  v.  Cotton,  1  Pet.  543,  7  L.  ed.  242;  United 
States  v.  Gratiot,  14  Pet.  526,  10  L.  ed.  573;  Dred  Scott  v.  Sandford, 

19  How.  393,  15  L.  ed.  691;   Cross  v.  Harrison,  16  How.   164,  14  L. 
ed.  889. 

28  Miners'  Bank  v.  Iowa,  12  How.  7,  13  L.   ed.  867. 

29  Snow  v.  United  States,  18  Wall.  319,  21  L.  ed.  734. 


599  Territories.  Art.  IV,  §  3,  CI.  2 

erned  by  or  under  the  authority  of  Congress.30  In  legislating 
for  the  territories  Congress  exercises  the  combined  powers  of 
the  federal  and  state  governments,31  hut  while  Congress  has 
full  dominion  and  sovereignty  in  this  respect,32  yet  in  its  legis- 
lation Congress  is  subject  to  those  fundamental  limitations  in 
favor  of  personal  rights  formulated  by  the  constitution  and  its 
amendments.33  Congress  may  give  jurisdiction  to  the  terri- 
torial courts,34  but  in  so  doing  it  does  not  constitute  such 
courts  courts  of  the  United  States.35 

The  constitution  confers  on  the  general  government  no  power 
to  establish  or  maintain  colonies;  but  it  may  enlarge  its  terri- 
tory by  acquiring  land  to  be  governed  by  Congress  until  fit  for 
admission  into  the  Union  as  states.36  A  treaty  of  cession  does 
not  of  itself  operate  to  incorporate  the  ceded  territory  as  part 
of  the  United  States,  and  a  provision  in  such  a  treaty  that  civil 
rights  and  political  status  shall  be  determined  by  Congress 
shows  an  express  purpose  to  prevent  incorporation.37  The  ac- 
ceptance of  a  cession  of  territory  does  not,  ipso  facto,  extend 
over  such  territory  the  provisions  of  the  constitution  guarantee- 
ing trial  by  jury  in  criminal  cases.38 

Alaska  is  one  of  the  territories  of  the  United  States,39  as  also 
is  Indian  Territory.40 

30  National  Bank  v.  County  of  Yankton,  101  U.  S.  133,  25  L.  ed. 
1016. 

31  American  Ins.  Co.  v.  Cotton,  1  Pet.  543,  7  L.  ed.  242. 

32  McAllister  v.  United  States,  141  U.  S.  181,  11  S.  Ct.  949,  35 
L.  ed.  693;  Utter  v.  Franklin,  172  U.  S.  423,  19  S.  Ct.  183,  43  L.  ed. 
198;   Simms  v.  Simms,   175  U.  S.  168,  20  S.  Ct.  58,  44  L.  ed.  115. 

33  Late  Corporation  etc.  v.  United  States,  136  U.  S.  44,  10  S.  Ct. 
792,  34  L.  ed.  478. 

34  Sere  v.  Pitot,  6  Cr.  332,  3  L.  ed.  240;  Leitensdorfer  v.  Webb, 
20  How.  182,  15  L.  ed.  891. 

35  Hunt  v.  Palao,  4  How.  589,  11  L.  ed.  1115;  Clinton  v.  Engle- 
brecht,  13  Wall.  448,  20  L.  ed.  659. 

36  Dred  Scott  v.  Sandford,  19  How.  446,  15  L.  ed.  691. 

37  Downes  v.  Bidwell,  182  U.  S.  340,  21  S.  Ct.  770,  45  L.  ed.  1088. 
3S  Territory  of  Hawaii  v.  Mankichi,  190  U.  S.  197,  23  S.  Ct.   787, 

47  L.  ed.  1016. 

39  Steamer  Coquitlam  v.  United  States,  163  U.  S.  352,  16  S.  Ct. 
1117,  41  L.  ed.  184. 

40  The  Cherokee  Tobacco,  11  Wall.  619,  20  L.  ed.  227. 


Art.  IV,  §  3,  CI.  2  Teiujitokies.  GUO 


Territorial  Government. 


Congress  may  govern  the  territories  mediately  or  immediately, 
either  by  the  creation  of  a  territorial  government  or  by  the  pass- 
age of  laws  directly  operating  on  the  territory.41  The  power  to 
establish  territorial  governments  is  implied  from  the  necessity 
of  protecting  the  rights  of  person  and  property  beyond  the  lim- 
its of  any  state,42  and  the  form  and  extent  of  such  government 
rests  in  the  discretion  of  Congress  within  the  definition  and  limi- 
tations of  the  federal  constitution.43  The  extent  of  the  power 
of  self-government  depends  solely  upon  the  organic  act  of  Con- 
gress in  each  case,  which  is  always  subject  to  alteration  by  Con- 
gress.44 The  general  practice  in  the  formation  of  territorial 
governments  is  to  leave  to  the  inhabitants  all  powers  of  self- 
government  consistent  with  the  supremacy  and  supervision  of 
the  national  government  and  with  the  fundamental  principles 
established  by  Congress;45  subject  to  these  restrictions  and  the 
power  of  Congress  to  revoke  and  alter,  the  powers  of  territorial 
legislatures  are  as  extensive  as  those  exercised  by  any  state  legis- 
lature.46 

41  Cohen  v.  Virginia,  6  Wheat.  428,  5  L.  ed.  257;  Miners'  Bank 
v.  Iowa,  12  How.  7,  13  L.  ed.  867;  Snow  v.  United  States,  18  Wall. 
319,  21  L.  ed.  784;  McAllister  v.  United  States,  141  U.  S.  181,  11  S. 
Ct.  949,  35  L.  ed.  €93;  Utter  v.  Franklin,  172  U.  S.  423,  19  S.  Ct.  183, 
43  L.  ed.  198;  Edwards  v.  Panama,  1  Or.  418;  Lincoln  etc.  Min.  Co. 
v.  District  Court,  7  N.  Mex.  502,  38  Pac.  585;  People  v.  Clayton,  4 
Utah,  432,  11  Pac.  210. 

42  United  States  v.  Gratiot,  14  Pet.  537,  10  L.  ed.  573;  United 
States  v.  Railroad  Bridge  Co.,  6  McLean,  517,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,114; 
State  v.  Navigation  Co.,  11  Mart.  309. 

43  Dred  Scott  v.  Sandford,  19  How.  393,  15  L.  ed.  691;  Ex  parte 
Perkins,  2  Cal.  424. 

44  Snow  v.  United  States,  18  Wall.  320,  21  L.  ed.  784;  Walker  v. 
New  Mexico  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  165  U.  S.  604,  17  S.  Ct.  421,  41  L.  ed.  837; 
United  States  v.  McMillan,  165  U.  S.  511,  17  S.  Ct.  395,  41  L.  ed. 
805. 

45  Clinton  v.  Englebrecht,  13  Wall.  441,  20  L.  ed.  659;  Wilkerson 
v.  Utah,  99  U.  S.  130,  25  L.  ed.  345;  Walker  v.  New  Mexico  etc.  R. 
R.  Co.,  165  U.  S.  604,  17  S.  Ct.  421,  41  L.  ed.  837. 

4  6  Hornbuckle  v.  Toombs,  18  Wall.  655,  21  L.  ed.  966;  Late  Corpo- 
ration etc.  v.  United  States,  136  U.  S.  42-45,  10  S.  Ct.  792,  34  L.  ed. 
478. 


601  Teehitoeies.  Art.  IV,  §  3,  CI.  2 

The  act  establishing  and  organizing  a  territory  stands  as  its 
fundamental  law  or  constitution,47  and  while  that  act  confers 
the  powers  of  government,  the  legislature  remains  the  creature 
of  Congress.48  Upon  the  admission  of  a  territory  the  authority 
of  Congress  ceases,  but  the  legislature  which  is  in  session  when 
the  act  of  admission  is  passed  may  continue  to  discharge  its  du- 
ties until  duly  superseded.49  An  organic  act  vesting  a  territory 
with  general  legislative  powers  confers  authority  to  charter  cor- 
porations.50 Where,  however,  the  act  permits  the  legislature  to 
deal  with  all  "rightful  subjects"  of  legislation  the  courts  are 
not  precluded  from  determining  the  scope  of  the  legislative  au- 
thority as  so  defined.51  Where  for  twelve  years  Congress  has 
taken  no  action  regarding  a  law  passed  by  a  territorial  legisla- 
ture, it  may  be  reasonably  inferred  that  the  law  has  the  ap- 
proval of  Congress.52  A  legislature  may  pass  an  act  authorizing 
a  judgment  of  an  appeal  bond  against  the  sureties  as  well  as 
the  appellants.53  The  jurisdiction  of  their  several  courts  may 
be  determined  by  the  territorial  legislatures  ;54  but  a  legislature 
lias  no  power  to  deprive  the  supreme  or  district  courts  of  chan- 
cery and  common-law  jurisdiction.55  A  territory  may  exempt 
from  taxation  lands  granted  by  Congress  in  aid  of  a  railroad.56 
Where  the  organic  act  confers  only  the  power  to  "change"  the 
location,  it  has  been  held  that  the  legislature  of  a  territory  has 
no  power  to  "fix"  the  location  of  the  seat  of  government.57 

47  Ferris  v.   Higley,   20  Wall.   3S0,   22   L.  ed.   383;   National  Bank 
v.  County  of  Yankton,  101  U.  S.  133,  25  L.  ed.  1046. 

48  Treadway  v.  Schnauber,  1  Dak.  236. 

49  State  v.  Hitchcock,  1  Kan.  178,  81  Am.  Dec.  503. 

50  Trustees  for  Vincennes  University  v.  Indiana,  14  How.  273,  14 
L.  ed.  416. 

51  Linford  v.  Ellison,  155  U.  S.  506,  15  S.  Ct.  179,  39  L.  ed.  239. 

52  Clinton  v.  Englebrecht,  13  Wall.  446,  20  L.  ed.  659;   Camou   v. 
United  States,  171  U.  S.  287,  18  S.  Ct.  589,  43  L.  ed.  163. 

53  Beall  v.  New  Mexico,  16  Wall.  539,  21  L.  ed.  292. 

54  Clough  v.  Curtis,  134  U.  S.  368,  10  S.  Ct.  573,  33  L.  ed.  945. 

55  Dunphy  v.  Kleinsmith,  11  Wall.  614,  20  L.  ed.  223. 

56  McHenry  v.  Alford,  168  U.  S.  673,  18  S.  Ct.  242,  42  L.  ed.  614. 

57  Seat  of  Government,  1  Wash.  Ter.  135. 


Art.  IV,  §  3,  CI.  2  Territories.  602 

The  constitution  is  applicable  to  territory  acquired  by  pur- 
chase or  conquest  only  when  and  so  far  as  Congress  may  direct ; 
but  when  once  the  constitution  has  been  formally  extended  to  a 
territory,  neither  Congress  nor  the  territorial  legislature  may  en- 
act laws  inconsistent  therewith.58 

58  Downes  v.  Bidwell,  1S2  U.  S.  271-279,  21  S.  Ct.  770,  45  L.  ed. 
1088. 


603  Eepublican  Government.  Art.  IV,  8  4 


SECTION"  4. 

REPUBLICAN  FORM  OF  GOVERNMENT    GUARANTEED.      PROTECTION 
AGAINST  INVASION. 

The  United  States  shall  guarantee  to  every  State 
in  this  Union  a  republican  form  of  government,  and 
shall  protect  each  of  them  against  invasion;  and  on 
application  of  the  legislature,  or  of  the  executive, 
(when  the  legislature  cannot  be  convened)  against  do- 
mestic violence. 

Construction. 

The  distinguishing  feature  of  the  republican  form  of  govern- 
ment is  the  right  of  the  people  to  choose  their  own  officers  for 
governmental  administration  and  to  pass  their  own  laws;  by 
virtue  of  the  legislative  power  reposed  in  representative  bodies 
and  by  the  adoption  of  a  constitution  the  people  limit  their  own 
power  as  against  the  sudden  impulses  of  mere  majorities.1 

The  "state"  here  referred  to  is  a  member  of  the  Union,2  an 
organized  people,  or  a  community  of  free  citizens  occupying  a 
definite  territory.3  The  provision  does  not  undertake  to  desig- 
nate any  particular  government  as  republican,  nor  is  the  exact 
form,  in  any  manner  especially  indicated.4  Clearly,  a  perma- 
nent military  government  would  not  be  such,  but  in  certain 
emergencies  the  national  government  may  interfere  in  the  do- 
mestic concerns  of  a  state,  and  the  decisions  of  the  political  de- 
partment as  to  the  necessity  of  such  interference  are  conclusive.3 

1  In  re  Duncan,  139  TJ.  S.  461,  11  S.  Ct.  373,  35  L.  ed.  219. 

2  Scott  v.  Jones,  5  How.  377,  12  L.  ed.  181;  Cherokee  Nation  v. 
Georgia,  5  Pet.  18,  8  L.  ed.  25. 

3  Texas  \.  White,  7  Wall.  721,  19  L.  ed.  227. 

4  Minor  v.  Happersett,  21  Wall.  162,  22  L.  ed.  627. 

5  Luther  v.  Borden,  7  How.  42,  12  L.  ed.  581. 


Art.  IV,  §  4  Republican  Government.  604. 

And  if  public  bodies  not  duly  organized  or  admitted  into  the 
Union  should  attempt  as  states,  to  enact  laws  encroaching  on  the 
powers  of  the  United  Slates,  they  could  be  suppressed  by  the 
power  of  the  United  States  to  put  down  insurrection,  or  by  the 
ordinary  penal  laws  of  the  states  or  territories  in  which  they 
were  situated.6 


Powers  of  Congress. 

It  is  for  Congress  to  determine  what  government  is  the  es- 
tablished one  in  a  state,  and  whether  it  is  republican  or  not, 
and  its  decision  in  this  respect  is  binding  on  every  other  de- 
partment of  government.7  Recognition  of  the  authority  of  a 
state  government,  as  well  as  its  republican  character,  is  necessa- 
rily implied  from  the  admission  of  its  senators  and  representa- 
tives to  seats  in  Congress.8  Congress  may  delegate  to  the  Presi- 
dent the  power  to  determine  whether  a  government  assuming 
to  act  as  the  state  government  is  in  fact  such.9 

The  term  "form  of  government"  cast  upon  Congress  the  duty, 
upon  the  suppression  of  the  Rebellion,  to  re-establish  the  broken 
relations  of  the  states  which  seceded,10  and  Congress  was  the 
only  department  of  government  authorized  to  reorganize  and  re- 
construct the  rebellious  states.11  In  the  exercise  of  this  power 
a  discretion  as  to  the  means  is  necessarily  implied.12  Congress 
may  require  that  the  new  state  constitution  shall  adopt  any 
measure  which  the  national  government  has  power  to  enact  and 
enforce,13  but  the  approval  of  such  a  constitution  does  not  make 

6  Scott  v.  Jones,  o  How.  343,  12  L.  ed.  187.  As  to  status  of  states 
'n    rebel'ion,    s  ee    ante,   p.   242. 

7  Luther  v.  Borden,  7  How.  42,  12  L.  ed.  581;  Texas  v.  White,  7 
Wall.  730,  19  L.  ed.  227. 

8  United  States  v.  Rhodes,  1  Abb.  U.  S.  47,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,151; 
White  v.  Hart,  13  Wall.  646,  20  L.  ed.  685. 

9  Luther  v.  Borden,  7  How.  44,  12  L.  ed.  581;  Martin  v.  Mott, 
12  Wheat.  29,  6  L.  ed.  537. 

10  Texas  v.  White,  7  Wall.  727,  19  L.  ed.  227. 

11  Powell  v.  Boon,  43  Ala.  469. 

12  Texas  v.  White,  7  Wall.  727,  19  L.  ed.  227. 

13  Hardeman  v.  Downer,  39  Ga.  425. 


605  Eepublican  Government.  Art.  IV,  §  4 

it  an  act  of  Congress.14  Where  a  rebellious  state  frames  a  new 
constitution  which  is  approved  by  Congress  such  state  is  es- 
topped to  deny  its  binding  force.15 

14  White  v.  Hart,  13  Wall.  646,  20  L.  ed.  685;  Marsh  v.  Burroughs, 
1  Woods,  463,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9112;  Homestead  Cases,  23  Gratt.  266, 
12  Am.  Eep.  507;  In  re  Kennedy,  2  Eich.  116. 

15  White  v.  Hart,  13  Wall.  646,  20  L.  ed.  685. 


Art.  V  Amendments.  606 


ARTICLE  V. 

MANNER  OF  MAKING  AMENDMENTS  TO  CONSTITUTION. 

The  Congress,  whenever  two-thirds  of  both  Houses 
shall  deem  it  necessary,  shall  propose  Amendments  to 
this  Constitution ;  or,  on  the  application  of  the  legisla- 
tures of  two-thirds  of  the  several  States,  shall  call  a 
Convention  for  proposing  Amendments,  which,  in  either 
case,  shall  be  valid  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  as  part 
of  this  Constitution,  when  ratified  by  the  legislatures  of 
three-fourths  of  the  several  States,  or  by  conventions 
in  three-fourths  thereof,  as  the  one  or  the  other  mode  of 
ratification  may  be  proposed  by  the  Congress ;  provided, 
that  no  Ajnendment  which  may  be  made  prior  to  the 
year  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  eight  shall  in  any 
manner  affect  the  first  and  fourth  clauses  in  the  ninth 
Section  of  the  first  Article;  and  that  no  State,  without 
its  consent,  shall  be  deprived  of  its  equal  suffrage  in 
the  Senate. 

The  people  made  the  constitution  and  may  unmake  it;  but 
this  power  to  unmake  resides  in  the  whole  body  of  the  people, 
not  in  any  subdivision  of  them,1  and  no  limit  can  be  imposed 
upon  the  people  in  their  sovereign  capacity  in  this  respect.2 
The  people  of  the  states  are  the  constituency  of  the  federal  and 
state  governments,  and  they  may  alter  the  constitution  of 
either.3  • 

The  President's  approval  to  a  proposed  amendment  is  not 
required  by  article  I,  section  7,  clause  3,  declaring  that  every 

1  Cohens  v.  Virginia,  6  Wheat.  389,  5  L.  ed.  257;  Wanser  v.  Hoos, 
60  N.  J.  L.  525,  64  Am.  St.  Rep.  602,  38  Atl.  450. 

2  Ex  parte  Griffin.  25  Tex.  Supp.  623. 

3  Spooner  v.  McConnell,  1  McLean,  337,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,245. 


607  Amendments.  Art.  V 

order,  resolution,  or  vote  to  which  the  concurrence  of  the  Senate 
and  House  of  Kepresentatives  shall  be  necessary  shall  be  pre- 
sented to  the  President  for  his  approval.4 

All  of  the  amendments  proposed  by  the  first  session  of  Con- 
gress, consisting  of  the  first  ten,  were  intended  to  apply  only  to 
the  federal  government,  and  not  as  restrictions  on  the  state 
governments.5  They  were  not  intended  to  lay  down  any  novel 
principles  of  government,  but  simply  to  embody  certain  guar- 
anties and  immunities  inherited  from  our  English  ancestors 
and  from  time  immemorial.6 

4  Hollingsworth  v.  Virginia,  3  Dall.  381,  1  L.  ed.  644;  State  ex 
rel.  v.  Secretary  of  State,  43  La.  Ann.  655,  9  South.  798. 

5  Barron  v.  Mayor  of  Baltimore,  7  Pet.  247,  8  L.  ed.  672;  Living- 
ston's Lessee  v.  Moore,  7  Pet.  551,  8  L.  ed.  751;  Fox  v.  Ohio,  5  How. 
434,  12  L.  ed.  213;  Smith  v.  Maryland,  18  How.  76,  15  L.  ed.  269; 
Withers  v.  Buckley,  20  How.  90,  15  L.  ed.  816;  Legal  Tender  Cases, 
12  Wall.  535,  20  L.  ed.  287;  Justices  v.  Murray,  9  Wall.  278,  19  L. 
ed.  658;  North  Missouri  E.  E.  Co.  v.  McGuire,  20  Wall.  46,  22  L.  ed. 
287,  affirming  49  Mo.  490,  8  Am.  Eep.  141;  Twitchell  v.  Commonwealth, 
7  Wall.  325,  19  L.  ed.  223;  Pervear  v.  Commonwealth,  5  Wall.  479, 
IS  L.  ed.  608;  United  States  v.  Cruikshank,  92  U.  S.  552,  23  L.  ed. 
588;  Spies  v.  Illinois,  123  U.  S.  166,  8  S.  Ct.  21,  31  L.  ed.  80;  McElvaine 
v.  Brush,  142  TJ.  S.  158,  12  S.  Ct.  156,  35  L.  ed.  971;  Thorington  v. 
Montgomery,  147  TJ.  S.  492,  13  S.  Ct.  394,  37  L.  ed.  252;  Brown  v. 
New  Jersey,  175  TJ.  S.  174,  20  S.  Ct.  77,  44  L.  ed.  119;  Boring  v. 
Williams,  17  Ala.  516;  Noles  v.  State,  24  Ala.  691;  Fife  v.  State,  31 
Ark.  458,  25  Am.  Eep.  558;  Cairo  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Turner,  31  Ark. 
499,  25  Am.  Eep.  567;  Eyan  v.  People,  21  Colo.  122,  40  Pac.  776;  Colt 
v.  Eves,  12  Conn.  252;  State  v.  Boswell,  104  Ind.  542,  4  N.  E.  676; 
State  v.  Barnett,  3  Kan.  253,  87  Am,  Dec.  472;  Trombley  v.  Humphrey, 
23  Mich.  482,  9  Am.  Eep.  102;  Martin  v.  Dix,  52  Miss.  58,  24  Am.  Eep. 
663;  Bohanon  v.  State,  18  Neb.  77,  53  Am.  Eep.  806,  24  N.  W.  399; 
EkMdge  v.  Binghamton,  120  N.  Y.  313,  24  N.  E.  463;  Livingston 
v.  Mayor,  8  Wend.  85,  22  Am.  Dec.  622. 

6  Eobertson  v.  Baldwin,  165  U.  S.  281,  17  S.  Ct.  326,  41  L.  ed.  715. 


Art.  VI,  CI.  1        Debts  of  Confederation.  608 


ARTICLE  VI. 

GENERAL  PROVISIONS. 

1.  Debts.     Existing  obligations   ratified. 

2.  Supreme  law  of  the  land. 

3.  Oath  to   support  Constitution.     No   religious  test. 

1.  All  debts  contracted  and  engagements  entered 
into,  before  the  adoption  of  this  Constitution,  shall  be 
as  valid  against  the  United  States  under  this  Constitu- 
tion, as  under  the  Confederation. 

This  clause  was  an  express  assumption  of  the  debts  incurred 
under  the  Articles  of  Confederation.1 

1   Terrett  v.   Taylor,  9   Cr.   50,  3  L.  ed.  650;   Kelly  v.  Harrison,  2 
Johns.  Cas.  29;  Jackson  v.  Lamphire,  3  Johns.  Cas.  109. 


G09  Supremacy  of  Constitution.      Art.  VI,  CI.  2 

2.  This  Constitution,  and  the  laws  of  the  United 
States  which  shall  be  made  in  pursuance  thereof;  and 
all  treaties  made,  or  which  shall  be  made,  under  the 
authority  of  the  United  States,  shall  be  the  supreme 
law  of  the  land;  and  the  judges  in  every  State  shall  be 
bound  thereby,  anything  in  the  Constitution  or  laws  of 
any  State  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. 

Supremacy  of  the  Constitution. 

The  constitution  of  the  United  States  was  formed  mainly  to 
secure  union  and  harmony,  and  for  this  purpose  it  was  necessary 
that  in  the  sphere  of  action  assigned  to  the  national  government 
it  should  he  supreme;1  it  was  intended  to  frame  a  paramount 
government,  sovereign  in  its  sphere,  as  distinguished  from  a 
league  or  compact.2  To  this  end  it  was  necessary  to  make  the 
constitution  the  paramount  law  of  the  land.3  The  constitution 
is  supreme  over  all  the  departments  of  the  national  govern- 
ment, legislative,  executive  and  judicial,  and,  to  the  extent  of 
the  powers  delegated  therein,  over  all  who  made  themselves 
parties  to  it,  states  as  well  as  persons.  Nor  does  its  supremacy 
end  there;  it  is  supreme  over  the  people  of  the  United  States 
aggregately  and  in  their  separate  sovereignties.4  The  constitu- 
tion, treaties,  and  general  laws  made  hy  the  general  government 
on  the  rights,  duties,  and  subjects  specially  enumerated  and 
confided  to  their  jurisdiction  are  exclusive  and  supreme,  as  well 
by  necessary  implication  as  by  express  provision.5     The  Ordi- 

1  Martin  v.  Hunter,  1  Wheat.  363,  4  L.  ed.  97;  Dobbins  v.  Com- 
missioners  of  Erie  Co.,  10  Pet.  447,  10  L.  ed.  1022;  Ableman  v.  Booth, 
21  How.  517,  16  L.  ed.  169;  Kohl  v.  United  States,  91  U.  S.  372,  23 
L.  ed.  449;  In  re  Debs,  158  U.  S.  578,  15  S.  Ct.  900,  39  L.  ed.  1092; 
United  States  v.  Ehodes,  1  Abb.  U.  S.  44,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,151. 

2  Legal  Tender  Cases,  12  Wall.  533,  20  L.  ed.  287;  McCulloch  v. 
Maryland,  4  Wheat.  316,  4  L.  ed.  579. 

3  Prigg  v.  Commonwealth,  16  Pet.  628,  10  L.  ed.  1060;  New  Jersey 
v.  Wilson,  7  Cr.  164,  3  L.  ed.  303;  Terrett  v.  Taylor,  9  Cr.  43,  3  L. 
ed.  650;  Von  Hoffman  v.  Quincy,  4  Wall.  535,  18  L.  ed.  403;  Taylor 
v.  Taintor,  16  Wall.  366,  21  L.  ed.  287;  In  re  Komaine,  23  Cal.  585. 

4  Dodge  v.  Woolsey,  18  How.  347,  15  L.  ed.  401. 

5  Dodge   v.   Woolsey,   18   How.   331,   15   L.   ed.   401;   Farmers'   etc. 

Notes  on  Constitution — 39 


Art.  VI,  CI.  2      Supremacy  of  Constitution.  610 

nance  of  1787  is  to  be  considered  as  part  of  the  supreme  law 
of  the  land  wit.iin  this  clause.0 

This  provision  operates  to  make  the  government  of  the  United 
States  and  that  of  the  states  parts  of  the  same  system,7  and  to 
make  the  federal  constitution  a  part  of  the  organic  law  of  each 
state.8  So,  also,  the  laws  enacted  in  conformity  with  the  con- 
stitution are  made  part  of  the  law  of  each  state  and  are  bind- 
ing upon  the  state  authorities  and  people.9  In  all  branches  of 
government,  both  state  and  national,  however,  the  powers  of 
government  are  limited  and  defined;10  but  the  limitations  and 
implied  prohibitions  in  the  constitution  must  not  be  extended 
so  far  as  to  destroy  the  necessary  powers  of  the  state  or  pre- 
vent their  efficient  exercise,11  the  general  principles  in  the 
constitution  being  merely  declaratory  and  directory  and  not  in- 
tended to  fetter  and  control.12  The  federal  constitution  cannot 
become  weakened  by  a  particular  course  of  inaction  under  it.13 

From  the  supremacy  of  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the 
United  States  it  necessarily  results  that  the  interpretation  of 
the  constitution  and  laws  by  the  highest  tribunal  created  by  the 
constitution  must  be  equally  supreme  over  the  constitution  and 
laws  of  the  several  states.14  The  laws  of  the  United  States 
are  supreme  within  the  meaning  of  this  clause  only  when  made 

Bank  v.  Dearing,  91  TJ.  S.  29,  23  L.  ed.  196;  Farrington  v.  Tennessee, 
95  TJ.  S.  685,  24  L.  ed.  558;  Pensaeola  Tel.  Co.  v.  Western  Union  Tel. 
Co.,  96  TJ.  S.  1,  24  L.  ed.  708;  Sim's  Case,  7  Cush.  729;  United  States 
v.  Rhodes,  1  Abb.  U.  S.  44,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,151. 

6  Pollard  v.  Kibbe,  14  Pet.  417,  10  L.  ed.  490. 

7  Stearns  v.  United  States,  2  Paine,  300,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,341;  Gil- 
mer  v.   Lime   Point,   18   Cal.   229. 

8  Taylor  v.  Taintor,  16  Wall.  366,  21  L.  ed.  287;  In  re  Eomaine, 
23  Cal.  585. 

9  Farmers'  etc.  Bank  v.  Dearing,  91  U.  S.  35,  23  L.  ed.  196. 

10  Loan  Assn.  v.  Topeka,  20  Wall.  663,  22  L.  ed.  455. 

11  Railroad  Co.  v.  Peniston,  18  Wall.  31,  21  L.  ed.  787. 

12  Cooper  v.  Telfair,  4  Dall.  18,  1  L.  ed.  721. 

13  Pollock  v.  Farmers'  Loan  etc.  Co.,  158  U.  S.  629,  15  S.  E.  912, 
39  L.  ed.  1108. 

14  Warner  v.  The  Uncle  Sam,  9  Cal.  697. 


611  Supremacy  of  Constitution.      Art.  VI,  CI.  2 

in  conformity  with  the  constitution.15  and  an  act  of  Congress 
repugnant  to  the  constitution  is  void.16 

While  the  presumption  is  always  in  favor  of  the  constitu- 
tionality of  a  legislative  act,17  and  the  power  to  declare  a  stat- 
ute void  will  never  he  exercised  except  in  a  very  clear  case;1,8 
yet  it  is  not  only  the  right,  but  the  duty,  of  the  judiciary  to 
pass  upon  the  validity  of  statutes  and  to  declare  them  void 
when  their  repugnancy  to  the  constitution  is  apparent.19  The 
law  of  a  state,  although  enacted  in  the  exercise  of  a  power  not 
controverted,  if  it  interferes  with  any  valid  law  of  Congress 
must  yield  to  the  latter.20 

15  Marbury  v.  Madison,  1  Cr.  176,  2  L.  ed.  60;  Pollock  v.  Farmers' 
Loan  etc.  Co.,  157  U.  S.  554,  15  S.  Ct.  679,  39  L.  ed.  759;  In  re  Bo- 
gart,  2  Saw.  406,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1596;  Ex  parte  Selma  etc.  K.  R.  Co., 
45  Ala.  728,  6  Am.  Rep.  727;  Rison  v.  Farr,  24  Ark.  168,  87  Am. 
Dec.  56;  Koehler  v.  Iowa,  60  Iowa,  656,  15  N.  W,  635. 

16  Marbury  v.  Madison,  1  Cr.  176,  2  L.  ed.  60;  Ableman  v.  Booth, 
21  How.  520,  16  L.  ed.  169. 

17  Ogden  v.  Saunders,  12  Wheat.  270,  6  L.  ed.  606;  Legal  Tender 
Cases,  12  Wall.  531,  20  L.  ed.  287;  Brown  v.  Maryland,  12  Wheat.  436, 
6  L.  ed.  67S;  Butler  v.  Pennsylvania,  10  How.  415,  13  L.  ed.  472;  Von 
Hoffman  v.  Quincy,  4  Wall.  549,  18  L.  ed.  403;  United  States  v.  Harris, 
106  U.  S.  635,  1  S.  Ct.  601,  27  L.  ed.  290;  Hooper  v.  California,  155 
U.  S.  657,  15  S.  Ct.  207,  39  L.  ed.  297;  Chesapeake  etc.  Tel.  Co.  v. 
Manning,  186  U.  S.  245,  22  S.  Ct.  881,  46  L.  ed.  1144. 

18  Hylton  v.  United  States,  3  Dall.  175,  1  L.  ed.  556;  Calder  v. 
Bull,  3  Dall.  395,  1  L.  ed.  648;  Hepburn  v.  Griswold,  8  Wall.  610,  19 
L.  ed.  513;  Livingston  v.  Darlington,  101  U.  S.  410,  25  L.  ed.  1015; 
Fairbank  v.  United  States,  181  U.  S.  285,  21  S.  Ct.  648,  45  L.  ed.  862; 
Niagara  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Cornell,  110  Fed.  S16. 

19  Marbury  v.  Madison,  1  Cr.  176-180,  2  L.  ed.  60;  Mugler  v.  Kan- 
sas, 123  U.  S.  661,  8  S.  Ct.  297,  31  L.  ed.  205;  McCulloch  v.  Brown, 
41  S.  C.  243,  19  S.  E.  471,  23  L.  R.  A.  410;  In  re  Jacobs,  9S  N.  Y.  112, 
50  Am.  Rep.  645. 

20  Gibbons  v.  Ogden,  9  Wheat.  204,  6  L.  ed.  23;  New  York  v. 
Miln,  11  Pet.  137,  9  L.  ed.  648;  Passenger  Cases,  7  How.  533,  12  L. 
ed.  702;  Foster  v.  New  Orleans,  94  U.  S.  247,  24  L.  ed.  122;  Walling 
v.  Michigan,  116  U.  S.  455,  6  S.  Ct.  457,  29  L.  ed.  691;  Higgins  v. 
Lime,  130  Mass.  13;  State  v.  Cutshall,  110  N.  C.  549,  15  S.  E.  264, 
16  L.  R.  A.   130. 


Art.  VI,  CI.  2  Treaties.  612 

Treaty  as  Supreme  Law.* 

A  treaty  is  a  solemn  agreement  between  nations.21  The 
words  "treaty"  and  "nation,"  however,  are  words  of  our  own 
language,  and  have  been  applied  to  Indian  tribes,  thus  treating 
such  tribes  as  distinct  political  communities.22  It  binds  the 
nation  in  the  aggregate  and  all  its  subordinate  authorities  and 
judges,  state  as  well  as  federal.23 

When  duly  ratified,  a  treaty  becomes,  under  this  clause,  the 
supreme  law  of  the  land.24  A  treaty  is  in  the  nature  of  a  con- 
tract, but  in  the  United  States  it  is  something  more;  it  is  like 
an  act  of  Congress  of  which  the  courts  must  take  judicial  no- 
tice,25 and  it  constitutes  a  rule  of  decision  in  all  courts.26  The 
courts  are  empowered  to  administer  a  treaty  according  to  its 
terms,  but  they  cannot  annul  or  disregard  any  of  those  terms.-7 
When  the  terms  of  a  stipulation  import  a  contract,  a  treaty 

21  Foster  v.  Neilson,  2  Pet.  314,  7  L.  ed.  415;  Tucker  v.  Alexandroff, 
183  U.  S.  424,  22  S.  Ct.  195,  4©  L.  ed.  264;  Worcester  v.  Georgia, 
6  Pet.  515,  8  L.  ed.  483;  Taylor  v.  Morton,  2  Curt.  454,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
13,799. 

22  Worcester  v.  Georgia,  6  Pet.  5.36,  559,  8  L.  ed.  483;  United 
States  v.  Forty-three  Gallons  of  Whisky,  93  U.  S.  196,  23  L.  ed.  846; 
Talton  v.  Mayes,  163  U.  S.  3S3,  16  S.  Ct.  989,  41  L.  ed.  196;  Rolf 
v.  Burnlery,  168  U.  S.  21,  18  S.  Ct.  61,  42  L.  ed.  442;  United  States  v. 
Payne,  2  McCrary,  295,  8  Fed.  888;  In  re  Race  Horse,  70  Fed.  607. 

23  Ware  v.  Hylton,  3  Dall.  199,  1  L.  ed.  568;  Marbury  v.  Madison, 
1  Cr.  176,  2  L.  ed.  60;  Worcester  v.  Georgia,  6  Pet.  575,  8  L.  ed. 
483;  Calder  v.  Bull,  3  Dall.  386,  1  L.  ed.  648;  Owings  v.  Norwood,  5 
Cr.  348,  3  L.  ed.  120;  Satterlee  v.  Matthewson,  2  Pet.  413,  7  L.  ed.  458; 
Ex  parte  Garland,  4  Wall.  399,  18  L.  ed.  366;  Cummings  v.  Missouri, 
4  Wall.  329,  18  L.  ed.  356;  Fellows  v.  Denniston,  23  N.  Y.  420. 

24  Fairfax  v.  Hunter,  7  Cr.  627,  3  L.  ed.  453;  American  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Cotton,  1  Pet.  543,  7  L.  ed.  242;  Pollard  v.  Kibbe,  14  Pet.  412,  10  L. 
ed.  490;  Doe  v.  Braden,  16  How.  635,  14  L.  ed.  1090;  Chew  Heong  v. 
United  States,  112  U.  S.  540,  5  S.  Ct.  255,  28  L.  ed.  770;  In  re  Cooper, 
143  U.  S.  502,  12  S.  Ct.  453,  36  L.  ed  232. 

25  United  States  v.  Rauscher,  119  U.  S.v418,  7  S.  Ct.  234,  30  L.  ed. 
425. 

26  Strother  v.  Lucas,  12  Pet.  439,  9  L.  ed.  1137. 

27  Doe  v.  Braden,  16  How.  657,  14  L.  ed.  1090;  Chew  Heong  v. 
United  States,  112  U.  S.  540,  5  S.  Ct.  255,  28  L.  ed.  770. 


*  Lodgment   of   treaty-making  power,   see   ante,  p.   481. 


613  Treaties.  Art.  VI,  CI.  2 

addresses  itself  to  the  political,  and  not  to  the  judicial  depart- 
ment, and  Congress  must  execute  it  before  it  becomes  a  rule 
of  court.28  After  a  treaty  is  executed  and  ratified,  the  courts 
cannot  go  behind  it  for  the  purpose  of  annulling  its  opera- 
tion.29 The  courts,  both  federal  and  state,  are  bound  to  hold 
a  state  constitution  or  law  contrary  to  a  treaty  null  and  void.30 
A  treaty  is  to  be  regarded  as  equivalent  to  an  act  of  Congress 
whenever  it  operates  of  itself,  without  the  aid  of  any  legislative 
provisions;  and  where  a  treaty  and  an  act  of  Congress  are  in 
conflict,  the  latest  in  date  must  prevail.31  This  clause  was  not 
intended  to  operate  to  give  treaties  precedence  over  acts  of 
Congress,  or  vice  versa;  a  treaty  may  supersede  a  prior  act  of 
Congress,  and  an  act  of  Congress  may  supersede  a  prior 
treaty;32  and  any  law  contained  in  a  treaty  may  be  repealed 
by  Congress  when  it  relates  to  subjects  placed  under  the  legis- 
lative power.33     Whether  an  act  of  Congress  shall  prevail  over 

28  Foster  v.  Neilson,  2  Pet.  314,  7  L.  ed.  415;  United  States  v. 
Ferreira,  13  How.  40,  14  L.  ed.  42;  Turner  v.  Missionary  Union,  5 
McLean,  344,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,251;  Taylor  v.  Morton,  2  Curt.  454, 
Fed.   Cas.  No.  13,799;  In  re  Metzger,  1  Park.   C.  C.  108. 

29  Fellows  v.  Blacksmith,  19  How.  372,  15  L.  ed.  684;  Holden  v. 
Joy,  17  Wall.  242,  21  L.  ed.  523;  United  States  v.  New  York  Indians, 
173  U.  S.  469,  19  S.  Ct.  490,  43  L.  ed.  769. 

30  Ware  v.  Hylton,  3  Dall.  199,  1  L.  ed.  568;  Society  for  Propaga- 
tion of  Gospel  v.  New  Haven,  8  Wheat.  492,  5  L.  ed.  662. 

31  Foster  v.  Neilson,  2  Pet.  314,  7  L.  ed.  415;  United  States  v.  Ar- 
redondo,  6  Pet.  691,  8  L.  ed.  547;  United  States  v.  Percheman,  7  Pet. 
51,  8  L.  ed.  604;  Gordon  v.  Kerr,  1  Wash.  C.  C.  322,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
5611. 

32  The  Cherokee  Tobacco,  11  Wall.  621,  20  L.  ed.  227;  Whitney  v. 
Robertson,  124  U.  S.  194,  8  S.  Ct.  456,  31  L.  ed.  386;  Botiller  v.Do- 
minguez,  130  U.  S.  247,  9  S.  Ct.  525,  32  L.  ed.  926;  Horner  v.  United 
States,  143  U.  S.  578,  12  S.  Ct.  522,  36  L.  ed.  266;  Fong  Yue  Ting 
v.  United  States,  149  U.  S.  720,  13  S.  Ct.  1016,  37  L.  ed.  905;  Stephent 
v.  Cherokee  Nation,  174  U.  S.  483,  19  S.  Ct.  722,  43  L.  ed.  1041;  United 
States  v.  Lee  Yen  Tai,  185  U.  S.  220,  22  S.  Ct.  629,  46  L.  ed.  878. 

33  Talbot  v.  Seaman,  1  Cr.  1,  2  L.  ed.  15;  Ware  v.  Hylton,  3  Dall. 
199,  1  L.  ed.  568;  United  States  v.  Tobacco  Factory,  1  Dill.  266,  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  16,528;  Webster  v.  Reid,  11  How.  437,  13  L.  ed.  761; 
Popes  v.  Clinch,  S  Blatchf.  304,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,041;  Taylor  v.  Mor- 
ton, 2  Curt.  454,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,799;  Dred  Scott  v.  Sandford,  19 
How.   629,   15   L.   ed.   691. 


Art.  VI,  CI.  2  Treaties.  614 

a  treaty  is  purely  a  question  of  municipal  law  as  distinguished 
from  public  law.34 

In  declaring  that  treaties  shall  be  the  supreme  law  of  the 
land,  this  provision  presupposes  a  treaty  which  has  been  made 
pursuant  to  that  authority  which  has  been  conferred  upon  the 
treaty-making  department,  and  in  relation  to  subjects  over 
which  the  department  has  jurisdiction.35  A  treaty  in  violation 
of  the  constitution  cannot  be  upheld  as  the  law  of  the  land,30 
for  what  cannot  be  enacted  into  statutes  by  Congress  cannot 
be  done  by  treaty.37  Nor  can  a  right  be  incident  to  one  de- 
partment of  the  government  which  necessarily  goes  to  the  sus- 
pension of  a  right  incident  to  another  under  the  constitution.38 
The  validity  of  a  treaty  is  necessary  and  voluntary;  the  neces- 
sary validity  being  of  a  judicial  nature  and  the  voluntary  of  a 
political  nature.39  As  in  the  case  of  an  act  of  Congress,  the 
supreme  court  will  declare  a  treaty  void  only  in  a  clear  case.40 

34  Taylor  v.  Morton,  2  Curt.  454,  Fed.  Cas.  No.   13,799. 

35  People  v.  Naglee,  1  Cal.  231,  52  Am.  Dec.  312. 

36  License  Cases,  5  How.  613,  12  L.  ed.  256;  The  Cherokee  Tobacco, 
11  Wall.  620,  20  L.  ed.  227. 

37  The  Cherokee  Tobacco,  11  Wall.  620,  20  L.  ed.  227;  United  States 
v.  Rhodes,  1  Abb.  U.  S.  43,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,151;  People  v.  Washing- 
ton, 36  Cal.  658. 

38  Taylor  v.  Morton,  2  Curt.  454,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,799;  Jones  v. 
Walker,  2  Paine,  688,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7507;  Wilson  v.  Wall,  34  Ala. 
288. 

39  Jones  v.  Walker,  2  Paine,  688,  Fed.   Cas.  No.  7507. 

40  Ware  v.  Hylton,  3  Dall.  237,  1  L.  ed.  568. 


615  Oath  of  Office.  Art.  VI,  CI.  3 

3.  The  Senators  and  Representatives  before  men- 
tioned, and  the  members  of  the  several  State  legisla- 
tures, and  all  executive  and  judicial  officers,  both  of 
the  United  States  and  of  the  several  States,  shall  be 
bound  by  oath  or  affirmation  to  support  this  Constitu- 
tion; but  no  religious  test  shall  ever  be  required  as  a 
qualification  to  any  office  or  public  trust  under  the 
United  States. 

The  pledge  required  by .  this  clause  is  to  support  this  con- 
stitution— the  constitution  of  the  United  States.1  The  legis- 
lature is  not  restricted  to  the  oath  or  affirmation  here  pre- 
scribed; it  may  add  thereto  any  other  oath  of  office  its  wisdom 
may  suggest.2  Congress  may  not,  however,  prescribe  a  test- 
oath  as  a  qualification  for  holding  office,  such  an  act  being,  in 
effect,  an  ex  post  facto  law,3  and  this  is  equally  true  of  the 
state  governments.4  A  referee  is  not  such  an  officer  as  is  re- 
quired to  take  this  oath.5  It  has  been  directly  held  in  a  state 
court  that  this  provision  is  merely  directory,  and  the  omission 
to  take  the  oath  does  not  affect  the  validity  of  the  officer's  acts.0 

Congress  held  in  some  of  the  earlier  contested  election  cases 
that  the  failure  of  election  officers  to  take  the  prescribed  oath 
was  ground  for  excluding  a  member-elect  from  his  seat;7  but 
the  ruling  has  been  otherwise  in  later  cases.8 

1  Ableman  v.  Booth,  21  How.  525,  16  L.  ed.  169. 

2  McCulloch  v.  Maryland,  4  Wheat.  416,  4  L.  ed.  579;  United  States 
v.  Ehodes,  1  Abb.  IT.  S.  43,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,151. 

3  Ex  parte  Garland,  4  Wall.  377,  18  L.   ed.  366. 

4  Cummings  v.  Missouri,  4  Wall.  323,  18  L.  ed.  356. 

5  Underwood  v.  McDuffee,  15  Mich.  361,  93  Am.  Dec.  194. 

6  Hill  v.  Boyland,  40  Miss.  618.  But  see  Thomas  v.  Taylor,  42 
Miss.  651,  2  Am.  Kep.  625;  White  v.  McKee,  19  La.  Ann.  111. 

7  McFarland  v.  Culpepper,  CI.  &  H.  221;  Easton  v.  Scott,  CI.  &  H. 
276;  Draper  v.  Johnston,  CI.  &  H.  710,  712. 

8  Finley  v.  Bisbee,  1  Ells.  99;  McGinnis  v.  Alderson,  Bowell,  638; 
Snuth  v.  Jackson,  Kowell,  21;  Goode  v.  Epes,  53d  Cong.  Eep.  1952, 
p.  8. 


Art.  VII  Ratification.  61G 


ARTICLE  VII. 

RATIFICATION  OF  CONSTITUTION. 

The  ratification  of  the  conventions  of  nine  States 
shall  be  sufficient  for  the  establishment  of  this  Consti- 
tution between  the  States  so  ratifying  the  same. 

The  constitution  went  into  effect  March  3,  1789.1 

It  was  ratified  by  the  several  States  in  the  following 
order:  Delaware,  December  7th,  1787;  Pennsylvania, 
December  12th,  1787;  New  Jersey,  December  18th, 
1787;  Georgia,  January  2nd,  1788;  Connecticut,  Janu- 
ary 9th,  1788;  Massachusetts,  February  6th,  1788; 
Maryland,  April  28th,  1788;  South  Carolina,  May  23rd, 
1788 ;  New  Hampshire,  June  21st,  1788 ;  Virginia,  June 
26th,  1788;  New  York,  July  26th,  1788;  North  Caro- 
lina, November  21st,  1789 ;  and  Rhode  Island,  May  29th, 
1790. 

Done  in  Convention,  by  the  unanimous  consent  of  the 
States  present,  the  seventeenth  day  of  September,  in 
the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  seven  hundred  and 
eighty-seven,  and  of  the  independence  of  the  United 
States  of  America  the  twelfth.  In  witness  whereof, 
we  have  hereunto  subscribed  our  names. 

GEO.   WASHINGTON, 
President,  and  Deputy  from  Virginia. 

l   Owings  v.   Speed,  5  Wheat.   423,  5  L.   ed.   124;  United  States  v. 
New  Bedford  Bridge,  1  Wood.  &  M.  430,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,867. 


617 


Ratification. 


Art.  VII 


New  Hampshire. 
John  Langdon, 
Nicholas  Gilman. 


Connecticut. 
Wm.  Samuel  Johnson, 
Roger  Sherman. 


Massachusetts. 
Nathaniel  Gorham, 
Rufus  King. 

New  Jersey. 
William  Livingston, 
David  Brearley, 
William  Paterson, 
Jonathan  Dayton. 

Pennsylvania. 
Benjamin   Franklin, 
Thomas  Mifflin, 
Robert  Morris, 
George  Clymer, 
Thomas  Fitzsimmons, 
Jared  Ingersoll, 
James  Wilson, 
Gouverneur  Morris. 

Delaware. 
George  Read, 
Gunning  Bedford,  Jr., 
John  Dickinson, 
Richard  Bassett, 
Jacob  Broom. 


"New  York. 
Alexander  Hamilton. 

Maryland. 
James  McHenry, 
Daniel,  of  St.  Tho.  Jenifer, 
Daniel  Carroll. 

Virginia. 
John  Blair, 
James  Madison,  Jr. 

North  Carolina. 
William  Blount, 
Richard  Dobbs  Spaight, 
Hugh  Williamson. 

South  Carolina. 
John  Rutledge, 
Charles  C.  Pinckney, 
Charles  Pinckney, 
Pierce  Butler. 

Georgia. 
William    Few, 
Abraham  Baldwin. 


Attest : 


WILLIAM  JACKSON,  Secretary. 


AMENDMENTS 

To  the  Constitution-  of  the  United  States,  Eatified  Ac- 
cording to  the  Provisions  of  the  Fifth  Article. 


ARTICLE  I. 

RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY— FREEDOM  OF  SPEECH— BIGHT  OF  PE- 
TITION. 

Congress  shall  make  no  law  respecting  an  establish- 
ment of  religion,  or  prohibiting  the  free  exercise  there- 
of; or  abridging  the  freedom  of  speech  or  of  the  press; 
or  the  right  of  the  people  peaceably  to  assemble,  and  to 
petition  the  Government  for  a  redress  of  grievances. 

Amendment,  proposed  25th  September,  1789;  ratified  loth  December, 
1791. 

Religion. 

This  amendment  was  intended  to  operate  on  the  national 
government  alone;  it  does  not  restrict  the  powers  of  the  states.1 
The  constitutional  guaranty  of  religious  freedom  limits  only 
congressional  legislation.2  It  takes  from  Congress  the  power 
to  legislate  with  respect  to  mere  religious  opinion  and  belief, 
but  leaves  it  free  to  act  as  to  the  violation  of  social  duties,  and 
as  to  peace  and  good  order.3     The  exercise  of  religious  privi- 

1  Permoli  v.  First  Municipality,  3  How.  609,  11  L.  ed.  739;  Fox 
v.  Ohio,  5  How.  410,  12  L.  ed.  213;  Ex  parte  Garland,  4  Wall.  399,  18 
L.  ed.  366;  United  States  v.  Cruikshank,  92  U.  S.  542,  23  L.  ed.  588. 

2  Barron  v.  Baltimore,  7  Pet.  243,  8  L.  ed.  672;  Withers  v.  Buckley, 
20  How.  84,  15  L.  ed.  816;  United  States  v.  Rhodes,  1  Abb.  U.  S.  43, 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,151;  Murphy  v.  People,  2  Cow.   815. 

3  Reynolds  v.  United  States,  98  U.  S.  145,  25  L.  ed.  2-14. 

(619) 


Am.  I  Freedom  of  Speech.  620 

leges  must  be  subordinate  to  criminal  laws,88  and  as  bigamy 
and  polygamy  are  crimes  under  the  laws  of  all  Christian 
countries,  this  amendment  cannot  be  invoked  to  defeat  legisla- 
tion for  their  punishment.4  Nor  is  a  "sense  of  religious  duty" 
a  defense  to  an  action  for  disturbing  the  peace.5 

This  amendment  and  the  clause  in  article  VI,  providing  that 
"no  religious  test  shall  ever  be  required  as  a  qualification  to  any 
office,"  are  the  only  provisions  in  the  federal  constitution  upon 
the  subject  of  religion,  the  whole  power  over  the  subject  being 
left  with  the  states.6  The  states  have  power  to  enact  "Sunday 
laws,"7  and  a  violation  of  such  laws  is  not  excused  by  religious 
belief.8 

Freedom  of  Speech  and  of  Press. 

The  constitutional  guaranty  of  "freedom  of  the  press"  is 
simply  intended  to  secure  to  the  conductors  of  the  press  the 
same  rights  and  immunities,  and  such  only,  as  are  enjoyed  by 
the  public  at  large;9  it  cannot  operate  to  give  to  them  any  im- 
munity from  prosecution  which  an  individual  would  not  have 
under  like  circumstances.10  While  freedom  of  circulation  is 
essential  to  freedom  of  the  press,11  yet  in  excluding  objection- 
able matter  from  the  mails  Congress  does  not  interfere  with 
that  freedom.12 

3a  Davis  v.  Beason,  133  TJ.  S.  342,  343,  10  S.  Ct.  299,  33  L.  ed.  637. 

4  United  States  v.  Keynolds,  98  U.  S.  145,  25  L.  ed.  244;  Davis  v. 
Beason,  133  TJ.  S.  342,  10  S.  Ct.  299,  33  L.  ed.  637. 

5  Commonwealth  v.  Plaisted,  148  Mass.  381,  12  Am.  St.  Eep.  569, 
19  N.  E.  226,  2  L.  E.  A.  142;  State  v.  White,  64  N.  H.  49,  5  Atl.  S29. 

6  Ex  parte  Garland,  4  Wall.  397,  18  L.  ed.  366;  Permoli  v.  First 
Municipality,  3  How.  609,  11  L.  ed.  739. 

7  Hennington  v.  Georgia,  163  U.  S.  304,  13  S.  Ct.  1086,  41  L.  ed. 
166;  Commonwealth  v.  Has,  122  Mass.  42;  Speeht  v.  Commonwealth, 
8  Pa.  St.  312,  49  Am.  Dec.  518;  Frolickstein  v.  Mobile,  40  Ala.  725; 
Ex  parte  Andrews,  18  Cal.  678;  Neuendorff  v.  Duryea,  69  N.  Y.  557, 
25  Am.  Eep.  235. 

8  Scales  v.  State,  47  Ark.  485,  58  Am.  Eep.  772,  1  S.  W.  772. 

9  Eiley  v.  Lee,  88  Ky.  603,  21  Am.  St.  Eep.  358,  11  S.  W.  713. 

10  Park  v.  Detroit  Free  Press  Co.,  72  Mich.  560,  16  Am.  St.  Eep. 
544,  40  N.  W.  731,  1  L.  E.  A.  599, 

11  Ex  parte  Jackson,  96  U.   S.   735,  24  L.   ed.   877. 

12  Ex  parte  Jackson,  96  TJ.  S.  735,  24  L.  ed.  877;  In  re  Eapier,  143 
TJ.  S.  134,  12  S.  Ct.  374,  36  L.  ed.  93. 


621  Eight  of  Assembly.  Am  I 

Right  of  Assembly. 

The  right  to  assemble  peaceably  for  the  purpose  of  petitioning 
Congress,  or  for  anything  else  connected  with  the  powers  or 
duties  of  the  government,  is  an  attribute  of  national  citizen- 
ship, and  protected  by  the  constitution.13  These  rights  existed 
long  before  the  constitution,  however;  this  amendment  merely 
prohibits  their  abridgment.14  Congress  has  no  power  to  punish 
the  disturbance  of  public  assemblies  of  peaceable  citizens;  such 
legislation  belongs  to  the  police  power  of  the  states.15 

13  United   States   v.   Cruikshank,   92  TJ.   S.   552,   23   L.   ed.  58S;   In 
re  Quarles,  158  TJ.  S.  535,  15  S.  Ct.  959,  39  L.  ed.  1080. 

14  United  States  v.  Cruikshank,  92  U.  S.  552,  23  L.  ed.  588. 

15  United  States  v.  Cruikshank,  92  U.  S.  542,  23  L.  ed.  588. 


Am.  II  Eight  to  Bear  Arms.  622 


AETICLE  II. 

EIGHT  TO  BEAR  ARMS. 

A  well-regulated  militia  being  necessary  to  the  secur- 
ity of  a  free  State,  the  right  of  the  people  to  keep  and 
bear  arms  shall  not  be  infringed. 

Amendment,  proposed  25th  September,  1789;  ratified  15th  December, 
1791. 

The  right  to  bear  arms  for  all  lawful  purposes  is  not  a  right 
granted  by  the  constitution;  the  right  is  recognized  as  existing, 
and  is  merely  protected  by  this  clause  from  infringement.1 
Even  in  this,  however,  the  right  is  protected  only  from  infringe- 
ment by  Congress;2  the  amendment  does  not  restrict  the  right 
of  the  states  to  regulate  the  subject  in  the  exercise  of  its  police 
power,  as  by  a  law  prohibiting  the  carrying  of  concealed  weap- 
ons,3 or  a  law  prescribing  the  punishment  for  an  assault  with 
a  dangerous  weapon.4  The  power  of  the  states  in  this  respect 
is  subject  only  to  the  power  of  Congress  to  organize  and  pro- 
vide for  a  militia.5 

1  United  States  v.  Cruikshank,  92  U.  S.  553,  23  L.  ed.  588. 

2  United  States  v.  Cruikshank.  92  U.  S.  553,  23  L.  ed.  588;  North- 
Carolina  v.  Newsom,  5  Ired.  250;  Andrews  v.  State,  3  Heisk.  165,  8 
Am.  Rep.  8;  Fife  v.  State,  31  Ark.  455,  25  Am.  Rep.  556. 

3  Chatteaux  v.  State,  52  Ala.  388;  State  v.  Buzzard,  4  Ark.  18; 
Fife  v.  State,  31  Ark.  455,  25  Am.  Rep.  556;  Nunn  v.  State,  1  Ga. 
243;  Louisiana  v.  Chandler,  5  La.  Ann.  489;  Louisiana  v.  Smith, 
13  La.  Ann.  633;  Louisiana  v.  Jumel,  13  La.  Ann.  399;  English  v. 
State,  35  Tex.  473,  14  Am.  Rep.  374;  Hopkins  v.  Commonwealth.  3 
Bush,  481;  State  v.  Wilforth,  74  Mo.  528;  Dunne  v.  People,  94  111. 
120;  State  v.  Reid,  1  Ala.  612,  35  Am.  Dee.  44.  But  see  Bliss  v. 
Commonwealth,  2  Litt.  99,  13  Am.  Dec.  251, 

4  Cockran  v.  State,  24  Tex.  394.  And  see  New  York  v.  Miln,  11 
Pet.   139,  9  L.  ed.  648. 

5  Dunne  v.  People,  94  111.   120. 


623  Eight  to  Bear  Arms.  Am.  Ill 

The  right  to  parade  with  arms  is  not  a  federal  right,  and 
a  state  law  prohibiting  bodies  of  men  to  so  parade  violates  no 
right  secured  by  the  United  States  constitution.6  This  amend- 
ment is  based  upon  the  idea  that  a  people  cannot  be  oppressed 
or  enslaved  who  are  not  first  disarmed.7 

It  has  been  held  in  a  state  case  that  a  statute  prohibiting 
the  bearing  of  arms  openly  is  unconstitutional.8 

6  Presser  v.  Illinois,  116  U.  S.  264,  266,  6  S.  Ct.  580,  29  L.  e<l. 
615;  Commonwealth  v.  Murphy,  166  Mass.  172,  44  N.  E.  138,  32  L. 
K.  A.  606. 

7  Cockran  v.  State,  24  Tex.  401. 

8  Nunn  v.  State,  1  Ga.  243. 


ARTICLE  III. 

QUARTERING  OF  SOLDIERS. 

No  soldier  shall,  in  time  of  peace,  be  quartered  in 
any  house  without  the  consent  of  the  owner,  nor  in  time 
of  war,  but  in  a  manner  to  be  prescribed  by  law. 

Amendment,  proposed  25th  September,  1789;  ratified  15th  December, 
1791. 


Am.  IV  Seaches  and  Seizures.  624 


ARTICLE  IV. 

UNREASONABLE     SEARCHES,     SEIZURES,     AND     WARRANTS 
PROHIBITED. 

The  right  of  the  people  to  be  secure  in  their  persons, 
houses,  papers,  and  effects,  against  unreasonable 
searches  and  seizures,  shall  not  be  violated,  and  no  war- 
rants shall  issue  but  upon  probable  cause,  supported  by 
oath  or  affirmation,  and  particularly  describing  the 
place  to  be  searched,  and  the  persons  or  things  to  be 
seized. 

Amendment,  proposed  25th  September,  1789;  ratified  15th  December, 
1791. 

Searches  and  Seizures. 

This  amendment  was  adopted  with  intent  to  restrict  and 
limit  the  powers  of  the  United  States ;  it  was  designed  to  guard 
against  abuses  under  the  guise  of  law,  and  has  reference  only 
to  proceedings  in  the  federal  courts.1  It  places  the  judicial 
power  under  strong  prohibitions  and  checks.2  This  protection 
of  the  right  of  the  people  to  be  secure  in  their  persons,  houses, 
papers  and  effects  was  such  as  wisdom  and  experience  demon- 
strated to  be  necessary.3  It  extends  only  to  those  who  are  par- 
ties to  the  constitution.4  The  rule  that  the  amendment  con- 
templates only  criminal  prosecutions,5  is  subject  to  some  quali- 
fication; it  applies  as  well  to  suits  for  penalties  and  forfeitures 
under  the  revenue  laws,6  and  it  has  been  held  that  a  railway 

1  Luther  v.  Borden,  7  How.  66,  12  L.  ed.  581;  Smith  v.  Maryland, 
18  How.  76,  15  L.  ed.  269. 

2  Green  v.  Biddle,  3  Smedes  &  M.  673. 

3  Ex  parte  Milligan,  4  Wall.  120,  IS  L.  ed.  281. 

4  Commonwealth  v."  Griffith,  19  Mass.  11. 

5  Ex  parte  Meador,  1  Abb.  U.  S.  317,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9375;  Murray  t. 
Hoboken  etc.  Co.,  18  How.  272,  15  L.  ed.  372. 

6  Boyd  v.  United  States,  116  U.  S.  632,  6  S.  Ct.  524,  29  L.  ed.  746. 


G25  Searches  and  Seizures.  Am.  IV 

commission  cannot  compel  the  production  of  private  papers 
of  railroad  officials.7  A  statute  declaring  that  allegations 
sought  to  be  proved  by  private  papers,  in  a  suit  for  a  penalty, 
shall  be  deemed  confessed  if  the  party  refuses  to  produce  them, 
is  equivalent  to  a  search  and  seizure  under  this  amendment, 
and  is  void.8 

The  amendment  does  not  prohibit  a  search  and  seizure  made 
in  attempting  to  execute  a  military  order,9  but  an  order  of 
arrest  made  by  the  War  Department  without  warrant  is  void.10 
The  prohibition  is  not  applicable  to  proceedings  for  the  recovery 
of  debts.11 

Warrant. 


"And  no  warrants  shall  issue  but  on  probable  cause"  refers 
only  to  process  issued  under  the  authority  of  the  United 
States.12  A  warrant  of  commitment  which  does  not  state  some 
good  cause  certain,  supported  by  an  oath,  is  illegal;13  but  an 
executive  officer  may  justify  his  acts  by  showing  a  regular  war- 
rant without  showing  that  it  was  founded  upon  a  complaint 
under  oath;  it  is  only  necessary  that  the  order  or  precept  shall 
be  lawful  on  its  face.14  The  name  bestowed  upon  process  can- 
not affect  its  constitutional  validity;  so  a  warrant  of  distress 
against  a  revenue  officer  is  not  a  search-warrant  requiring  a 
supporting  affidavit.15     A  warrant   directing  a  search  in  the 

I  In  re  Pacific  Kailway  Commission,  12  Saw.  579,  32  Fed.  254. 

8  Boyd  v.  United  States,  116  U.  S.  621,  6  S.  Ct.  52-1,  29  L.  ed.  746. 
And  see  In  re  Comingore,  96  Fed.  562. 

9  Allen  v.  Colby,  47  N.  H.  544. 

10  Ex  parte  Field,  5  Blatchf.  63. 

II  Ex  parte  Burford,  3  Cr.  448,  2  L.  ed.  495;  Murray  v.  Hoboken 
Land  Co.,  18  How.  272,  15  L.  ed.  372;  Ex  parte  Milligan,  4  Wall.  119, 
18  L.  ed.  281;  Wakely  v.  Hart,  6  Binn.  316;  Bell  v.  Clapp,  10  Johns. 
263,  6  Am.  Dec.  339;  Sailley  v.  Smith,  11  Johns.  500. 

12  Smith  v.  Maryland,  IS  How.  71,  15  L.  ed.  269;  State  v.  Bradley, 
26  Fed.  290;  Weimer  v.  Bunbury,  3  Mich.  208;  State  v.  Aiken,  42 
S.  C.  24S,  20  S.  E.  231,  26  L.  E.  A.  345. 

13  Ex  parte  Burford,  3  Cr.  448,  2  L.  ed.  495;  Anonymous,  2  Opin. 
Atty.  Gen.  266. 

14  Sanford  v.  Nichols,  13  Mass.  286. 

15  Den  v.  Hoboken  Land  Co.,   IS   How.   285,   15  L.   ed.   372. 

Notes  on  Constitution — 40 


Am.  IV  Seakches  and  Seizures.  626 

House  of  "A.  &  Co.,"  will  not  justify  a  search  in  the  house  of 
"A."16  A  specification  of  the  character,  quality,  number, 
weight,  or  other  circumstances  which  will  serve  to  distinguish 
the  object  to  be  searched  for,  is  necessary.17 

A  doubt  concerning  the  construction  of  a  law  providing  for 
seizure  may  authorize  a  certificate  of  probable  cause.18  What- 
ever the  probable  cause,  however,  the  facts  necessary  to  con- 
stitute it  must  appear  upon  oath  or  affirmation.19  An  affidavit 
based  upon  information  furnished  by  others  is  not  probable 
cause  sufficient  for  a  warrant;  the  oath  of  the  real  accuser  is 
required.20  The  constitutional  guaranty  extends  to  letters  and 
packages  sealed  and  deposited  in  the  mails,  and  they  can  be 
opened  only  under  a  warrant  like  that  issued  when  papers  in 
one's  household  are  subjected  to  search.21  Prescriptions  re- 
quired to  be  kept  by  druggists  are  declared  not  to  be  private 
papers  protected  from  seizure  under  a  similar  provision  in  a 
state  constitution.22 

16  Sanford  v.  Nichols,  13  Mass.  286. 
it  Sanford  v.  Nichols,  13  Mass.  286. 
is  United  States  v.  Eiddle,  5  Cr.  313,  3  L.  ed.  110. 

19  Ex  parte  Bollman,  4  Cr.  75,  2  L.  ed.  554;  In  re  Coleman,  15 
Blatchf.  406,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2980. 

20  In  re  Eule  of  Court,  3  Woods,  502,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,126. 

21  Ex  parte  Jackson,  96  U.  S.  733,  24  L.  ed.  877;  Commerford  v. 
Thompson,  2  Flipp.  616,  1  Fed.  421. 

22  State  v.  Davis,  108  Mo.  666,  32  Am.  St.  Eep.  640,  18  S.  W.  894. 


627  Eights  of  Accused.  Am.  V 


AKTICLE  V. 

EIGHTS  OF    PARTIES    ACCUSED  OF    CEIME— RIGHTS    AS    TO 

PROPERTY. 

No  person  shall  be  held  to  answer  for  a  capital,  or 
otherwise  infamous  crime,  unless  on  a  presentment  or 
indictment  of  a  grand  jury,  except  in  cases  arising  in 
the  land  or  naval  forces,  or  in  the  militia,  when  in 
actual  service  in  time  of  war  or  public  danger;  nor 
shall  any  person  be  subject  for  the  same  offense  to  be 
twice  put  in  jeopardy  of  life  or  limb ;  nor  shall  be  com- 
pelled in  any  criminal  case  to  be  a  witness  against  him- 
self, nor  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty,  or  property,  with- 
out due  process  of  law;  nor  shall  private  property  be 
taken  for  public  use,  without  just  compensation. 

Amendment,  proposed  25th  September,  1789;  ratified  15th  December, 
1791. 

Scope  of  the  Amendment. 

The  prohibitions  contained  in  this  amendment  are  exclusively 
restrictions  upon  the  federal  government,  and  designed  to  pre- 
vent interference  with  the  rights  of  the  states  and  their  citi- 
zens;1 but  it  is  a  restraint  on  the  legislative,  as  well  as  on  the 

1  Barron  v.  Mayor  of  Baltimore,  7  Pet.  247,  8  L.  ed.  672;  Den  v. 
Hoboken  Land  Co.,  18  How.  276,  15  L.  ed.  372;  Twitehell  v.  Common- 
wealth, 7  Wall.  325,  19  L.  ed.  223;  Fox  v.  Ohio,  5  How.  410,  12  L.  ed. 
213;  Withers  v.  Buckley,  20  How.  84,  15  L.  ed.  816;  Davidson  v.  New 
Orleans,  96  U.  S.  101,  24  L.  ed.  616;  In  re  Sawyer,  124  U.  S.  219,  8  S. 
Ct.  482,  31  L.  ed.  402;  Thorington  v.  Montgomery,  147  U.  S.  492,  13  S. 
Ct.  394,  37  L.  ed.  252;  Hallinger  v.  Davis,  146  U.  S.  319,  13  S.  Ct.  105, 
36  L.  ed.  986;  Clark  v.  Dick,  1  Dill.  8,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  281S;  Bonaparte 
v.  Camden  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  Baldw.  205,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1617;  King  v. 
Wilson,  1  Dil.  558,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7810;  United  States  v.  Barnhart, 
10   Saw.  497,  22  Fed.  490;   State  v.  Bradley,  26  Fed.  290;   Smith   v. 


Am.  V  Eights  of  Accused.  628 

executive  and  judicial,  departments  of  the  federal  government.2 
Corporations  are  "persons"  within  the  meaning  of  this  article.3 
This  amendment  creates  no  new  rights,  hut  is  merely  declara- 
tive of  great  fundamental  principles.4  Both  the  Fourth  and 
the  Fifth  Amendments  relate  to  the  personal  security  of  the 
citizen ;  they  nearly  run  into,  and  mutually  throw  light  on  each 
other.5 

Indictment. 

The  words  "infamous  crime"  are  descriptive  of  an  offense 
that  subjects  the  person  to  infamous  punishment,  or  prevents 
his  being  a  witness;6  but  in  order  to  constitute  an  offense  an 
infamous  crime,  it  must  have  been  made  such  by  Congress  or 
have  been  declared  to  be  a  felony  by  act  of  Congress.7  The  test 
of  such  a  crime  is  whether  the  statute  authorizes  infamous  pun- 
ishment.8    If  the  penalty  prescribed  is  imprisonment  in  a  peni- 

Bivens,  56  Fed.  355;  Williams  v.  Hert,  110  Fed.  166;  Noles  v.  State, 

24  Ala.  691;  Fife  v.  State,  31  Ark.  458,  25  Am.  Sep.  558;  Cairo  etc. 
E.  E.  Co.  v.  Turner,  31  Ark.  499,  25  Am.  Eep.  567;  Colt  v.  Eves,  12 
Conn.  252;  Lake  Erie  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Heath,  9  Ind.  559;  State  v.  Bos- 
well,  104  Ind.  542,  4  N.  E.  676;  Hollister  v.  Union  Co.,  9  Conn.  436, 

25  Am.  Dec.  36;  State  v.  Barnett,  3  Kan.  253,  87  Am.  Dec.  472;  Mar- 
tin v.  Dix,  52  Miss.  58,  24  Am.  Eep.  663;  Bohanan  v.  State,  18  Neb. 
77,  53  Am.  Eep.  806,  24  N.  W.  399;  Eldridge  v.  Linghamton,  120  N. 
Y.  313,  24  N.  E.  463;  Barker  v.  People,  3  Cow.  686,  15  Am.  Dec.  322; 
Prescott  v.  State,  19  Ohio  St.  184,  2  Am.  Eep.  388;  State  v.  Brown 
Mfg.  Co.,  18  E.  I.  20,  25  Atl.  248,  17  L.  E.  A.  856;  Lybarger  v.  State, 
2  Wash.  556,  27  Pac.  450. 

2  Den  v.  Hoboken  Land  Co.,  18  How.  276,  15  L.  ed.  372. 

3  Covington  etc.  Co.  v.  Sandford,  164  U.  S.  592,  17  S.  Ct.  198,  41 
L.  ed.  560;  Eailroad  Tax  Cases,  18  Fed.  385;  San  Mateo  v.  Southern 
Pacific  E,  E.  Co.,  8  Saw.  238,  13  Fed.  722. 

4  Young  v.  McKenzie,  3  Ga.  31;  Campbell  v.  State,  11  Ga.  353. 

5  Boyd  v.  United  States,  116  U.  S.  616,  6  S.  Ct.  524,  29  L.  e  I. 
746. 

6  United  States  v.  Sheppard,  1  Abb.  U.  S.  431,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
16,273;  United  States  v.  Block,  4  Saw.  211,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,609; 
United  States  v.  Maxwell,  3  Dill.  275,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,750;  United 
States  v.  Waller,  1  Saw.  701,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,634. 

7  United  States  v.  Wynn,  3  McCrary,  266,  9  Fed.  886. 

8  Ex  parte  Wilson,  1.14  U.  S.  425,  5  S.  Ct.  935,  29  L.  ed.  89;  United 
States  v.  Petit,  114  U.  S.  430,  5  S.  Ct.  1190,  29  L.  ed.  93;  Wong  Wing 
v.  United  States,  163  U.  S.  234,  16  S.  Ct.  979,  41  L.  ed.  140. 


629  Eights  of  Accused.  Am.  V 

tentiary  for  not  less  than  one  .year,  the  crime  is  infamous, 
whether  the  penalty  carries  with  it  hard  labor  or  not.9  If  the 
imprisonment  prescribed  is  "for  a  period  longer  than  one  year," 
presentment  or  indictment  by  a  grand  jury  is  indispensable.1* 
The  prohibition  of  the  amendment  is  jurisdictional,  and  a 
federal  court  cannot  try  a  prisoner  without  presentment  or  in- 
dictment in  the  eases  contemplated.11  The  punishment  im- 
posed in  a  given  case  is  of  no  moment  in  determining  the  nature 
of  the  crime;  if  the  penalty  prescribed  by  the  statute  is  such 
as  to  make  the  crime  infamous,  this  prohibition  applies.12  Mis- 
demeanors cannot  be  brought  within  the  term  "infamous,"13 
and  as  respecting  crimes  not  capital  or  otherwise  infamous, 
there  is  no  restriction  as  to  the  mode  of  procedure.14  Such  as 
are  not  infamous  may  be  prosecuted  by  information,15  but  the 
mere  denomination  of  a  crime  as  a  misdemeanor  does  not  make 
it  such  within  this  article;  the  penalty  must  determine  its 
nature.16  A  person  sentenced  to  imprisonment  for  an  infamous 
crime  is  entitled  to  be  discharged  on  habeas  corpus.17  The  fol- 
lowing are  examples  of  crimes  declared  by  the  courts  to  be  in- 
famous: counterfeiting;18  fraudulent  altering  of  poll-books;19 

9  Mackin  v.  United  States,  117  U.  S.  354,  6  S.  Ct.  778,  29  L.  ed. 
909;  United  States  v.  De  Walt,  12S  U.  S.  393,  9  S.  Ct.  Ill,  32  L.  ed. 
485;  In  re  Claasen,  140  U.  S.  204,  11  S.  Ct.  737,  35  L.  ed.  409. 

10  Parkinson  v.  United  States,  121  U.  S.  282,  7  S.  Ct.  896,  30  L. 
ed.  959;  Ex  parte  McClusky,  40  Fed.  74;  United  States  v.  Cadwalladev, 
59  Fed.  679;  Stokes  v.  United  States,  60  Fed.  598. 

ii  Ex  parte  Bain,  121  U.  S.  6-12,  7  S.  Ct.  787,  30  L.  ed.  849;  Ex 
parte  McClusky,  40  Fed.  74. 

12  In  re  Claasen,  140  U.  S.  204,  11  S.  Ct.  737,  35  L.  ed.  409. 

13  United  States  v.  Ebert,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,019. 

14  United  States  v.  Maxwell,  3  Dill.  275,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,750. 

15  Ex  parte  Wilson,  114  U.  S.  421,  5  S.  Ct.  935,  29  L.  ed.  S9; 
United  States  v.  Burgess,  3  McCrary,  278,  9  Fed.  896;  United  States 
v.  Wynn,  3  McCrary,  266,  9  Fed.  8S6;  United  States  v.  Field,  16  Fed. 
778. 

16  United  States  v.  Cadwallader,  59  Fed.  679. 

17  Ex  parte  Wilson,  114  U.  S.  421,  5  S.  Ct.  935,  29  L.  ed.  89. 

18  United  States  v.  Petit,  114  U.  S.  430,  5  S.  Ct.  1190,  29  L.  ed.  93. 

19  Mackin  v.  United  States,  117  U.  S.  350,  6  S.  Ct.  778,  29  L.  e  I. 
909. 


Am.  V  Eights  of  Accused.  630 

falsification  of  reports  by  national  bank  cashier;20  embezzle- 
ment by  national  bank  president;21  fraudulent  voting;22  in- 
timidating voters;23  adultery;24  grand  larceny.25 

An  indictment  must  be  found  by  a  grand  jury;  an  informa- 
tion may  be  preferred  by  an  officer  of  the  court.26  A  grand 
jury  is  a  body  of  men  varying  in  number  from  twelve  to  twenty- 
three,  who,  in  secret,  hear  the  evidence  offered  by  the  govern- 
ment only,  and  find  or  ignore  bills  of  indictment.27  A  de- 
ficiency in  the  statutory  number  of  grand  jurors  will  not  vitiate 
the  entire  proceedings,  where  more  than  enough  to  indict  were 
present  and  acted,  and  where  objection  was  not  made  before 
sentence.28  The  indorsement  of  an  indictment  is  no  part  of 
the  charge  against  the  defendant,  and  the  fact  that  it  was  not 
signed  or  indorsed  by  the  foreman  of  the  grand  jury  is  not 
necessarily  fatal,29  and  where  an  indictment  has  been  found 
and  indorsed  as  a  true  bill  by  the  foreman  of  the  grand  jury, 
the  failure  of  the  district  attorney  to  sign  it  does  not  go  to  the 
jurisdiction.30 

The  indictment  here  referred  to  is  the  indictment  as  it  is 
presented  by  the  grand  jury;  any  change  made  on  the  motion 
of  the  court  or  by  the  request  of  the  district  attorney  renders 
it  valueless  for  the  purpose  of  a  prosecution.31  A  proceeding 
to  disbar  an  attorney  is  a  quasi  civil  proceeding;  although  it 

20  Ex  parte  Bain,  121  IT.  S.  13,  7  S.  Ct.  787,  30  L.  ed.  849. 

21  United  States  v.  De  Walt,  128  U.  S.  393,  9  S.  Ct.  Ill,  32  L.  ed. 
485. 

22  Parkinson  v.  United  States,  121  U.  S.  282,  7  S.  Ct.  896,  30  L. 
ed.  959. 

23  United  States  v.  Smith,  40  Fed.  757. 

24  United  States  v.  Sutton,  47  Fed.  130. 

25  State  v.  Clark,  60  Kan.  455,  56  Pac.  769. 
£6  Clepper  v.  State,    4  Tex.  244. 

27  Commonwealth  v.  Wood,  2  Cush.  149;  People  v.  King,  2  Caines 
Eep.  98. 

28  In  re  Wilson,  140  U.  S.  582,  11  S.  Ct.  870,  35  L.  ed.  513. 

29  Frisbie  v.  United  States,  157  U.  S.  164,  15  S.  Ct.  586,  39  L.  ed. 
657. 

30  In  re  Lane,  135  U.  S.  449,  10  S.  Ct.  760,  34  L.  ed.  219. 

si   Ex  parte  Bain,  121  U.  S.  11-13,  7  S.  Ct.  781,  30  L.  ed.  849. 


631  Eights  of  Accused.  Am.  V 

may  be  based  upon  a  criminal  charge,  and  indictment  is  un- 
necessary.32 

This  article  retains  its  force  in  time  of  war  as  well  as  peace,32a 
and  it  cannot  be  avoided  in  time  of  war  on  the  plea  of  pub- 
lic danger.33  Cases  arising  in  the  land  and  naval  forces  are 
excepted  from  presentment  and  indictment  and  the  right  of 
trial  by  jury,34  but  "when  in  actual  service  in  time  of  war  or 
public  danger"  refers  to  the  militia  and  the  land  and  naval 
forces,35  and  a  military  commission  for  the  trial  of  persons  not 
in  the  military  or  naval  service  is  unconstitutional.36  An 
offense  committed  by  a  person  while  actually  in  the  naval  ser- 
vice is  a  "case  arising  in  the  naval  forces."37  So  a  paymaster's 
clerk  on  duty  in  the  navy  is  a  person  "in  the  naval  forces."38 

The  power  to  punish  military  and  naval  officers  is  distinct 
from  the  power  to  define  judicial  powers,39  and  the  power  of 
Congress  to  provide  for  the  government  of  the  land  and  naval 
forces  is  not  limited  or  affected  by  this  article.40  A  court- 
martial  is  a  lawful  tribunal  under  the  constitution;41  but  if 
such  a  court  should  act  beyond  its  jurisdiction  or  inflict  a 
punishment  forbidden  by  law,  its  action  could  be  inquired  into 
by  the  civil  courts  and  redress  given.42 

By  the  mere  act  of  acceptance  of  a  cession  of  territory  by 
Congress  the  inhabitants  of  such  territory  do  not  acquire  the 

32  Ex  parte  Wall,  107  U.  S.  265,  2  S.  Ct.  569,  27  L.  ed.  552. 
32a' In  re  Kemp,  16   Wis.  359. 

33  Ex  parte  Milligan,  4  Wall.  123,  18  L.  ed.  281. 

34  Ex  parte  Milligan,  4  Wall.  123,  18  L.  ed.  281;  In  re  Bogart, 
2  Saw.  406,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1596. 

,   35  In  re  Bogart,  2  Saw.  406,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1596. 

36  Milligan  v.  Hovey,  3  Biss.  13,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9605;  In  re  Bogart, 
2  Saw.  402,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1596;  Ex  parte  Field,  5  Blatchf.  79,  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  4761. 

37  In  re  Bogart,  2  Saw.  406,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1596. 

38  In  re  Bogart,  2  Saw.  406,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1596. 

39  Dynes  v.  Hoover,  20  How.  78,  15  L.  ed.  838;  In  re  Bogart,  2 
Saw.  401,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1596. 

40  In  re  Bogart,  2  Saw.  406,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1596. 

41  In  re  Bogart,  2  Saw.  406,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1596. 

42  Dynes  v.  Hoover,  20  How.  82,  15  L.  ed.  838. 


Am.  V  Eights  of  Accused.  632 

right  to  presentment  by  a  grand  jury  in  the  cases  here  contem- 
plated." 

Former  Jeopardy. 

Jeopardy  is  the  peril  in  which  a  defendant  is  put  when  he 
is  regularly  charged  with  crime  before  a  tribunal  properly  or- 
ganized and  competent  to  try  him;44  the  situation  of  a  prisoner 
when  a  trial  jury  has  been  impaneled  and  sworn  to  try  the  case 
upon  a  valid  indictment  or  information  and  such  jury  has  been 
charged  with  his  deliverance.45  A  criminal  proceeding  cannot 
be  said  to  be  instituted  when  a  bill  of  indictment  is  submitted 
to  a  grand  jury  by  the  prosecuting  attorney;  a  formal  charge 
openly  made  against  the  accused,  either  by  indictment  pre- 
sented, information  filed  in  court,  or  by  complaint  before  a 
magistrate,  is  necessary.46  From  this  it  appears  that  the  court 
before  whom  the  accused  was  tried  must  have  had  jurisdiction,47 
and  that  the  indictment  or  information  charging  the  offense 
must  not  have  been  so  invalid  that  a  judgment  based  upon  it 
would  be  annulled  on  appeal.48  The  supreme  court  has  de- 
clared, however,  that  a  general  verdict  of  acquittal  upon  an 
issue  of  not  guilty  to  an  indictment  not  objected  to  before  ver- 
dict as  being  insufficient,  is  a  bar  to  a  second  indictment  for 
the  same  offense,  even  though  the  first  indictment  be  so  de- 
fective that  it  would  be  set  aside  on  writ  of  error.49  But,  on 
the  other  hand,  a  defendant  who  procures  a  judgment  to  be 
set  aside  may  be  tried  anew  on  the  same  or  another  indictment 
for  the  game  offense.50 

43  Territory  of  Hawaii  v.  Manluehi,  190  U.  S.  197,  23  S.  Ct.  787, 
47  L.  ed.  1016. 

44  Commonwealth  v.  Fitzpatrick,  121  Pa.  St.  109,'  6  Am.  St.  Kep. 
757,  15  Atl.  466,  1  L.  B.  A.  451. 

45  McDonald  v.  State,  79  Wis.  651,  24  Am.  St.  Rep.  740,  50  N.  W. 
185. 

46  Post  v.  United  States,  161  U.  S.  5S7,  16  S.  Ct.  611,  40  L.  ed.  816. 

47  Thompson  v.  Smith,  79  Me.  162,  8  Atl.  688. 

48  Weston   v.   State,  63   Ala.   155;   Kendall   v.   State,   65  Ala.   492- 
State  v.  Heath,  8  Mo.  App.  102. 

49  United  States  v.  Ball,  163  U.  S.   669,  16  S.  Ct.  1192,  42  L.  ed. 
300. 

50  United  States  v.  Ball,  163  U.  S.  609,  16  S.  Ct.  1192,  42  L.  ed. 


633  Rights  of  Accused.  Am.  V 

A  prisoner  is  not  put  in  jeopardy  until  a  jury  of  twelve  men 
is  selected  and  sworn,51  and  for  the  purposes  of  this  amend- 
ment he  is  not  relieved  from  his  first  jeopardy  so  as  to  pre- 
clude a  second  until  the  verdict  of  the  jury  is  rendered  for  or 
against  him.52  So  twice  in  jeopardy  has  no  reference  to  mis- 
trials.53 Nor  does  the  prohibition  apply  where  a  jury  has  been 
discharged  from  necessity,  or  the  ends  of  justice  would  be 
defeated;54  as  where  one  of  the  jurors  becomes  insane,55  or  is 
attacked  with  a  sudden  illness;56  or  if  a  juror  is  so  biased 
that  he  is  unfit  to  sit  on  the  case;57  or  where  the  jury  cannot 
agree;58  or  where  the  jury  has  failed  to  agree  on  the  last  day 
of  the  term.59     So  also  where  the  jury  was  discharged  on  ac- 

300;  United  States  v.  Townmaker,  Hemp.  299,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,533a; 
State  v.  Bates,  22  Utah,  65,  S3  Am.  St.  Kep.  768,  61  Pac.  905;  State 
v.  Ward,  4S  Ark.  36,  3  Am.  St.  Eep.  213,  2  S.  W.  191;  Commonwealth 
v.  Arnold,  83  Ky.  1,  4  Am.  St.  Eep.  114. 

51  People  v.  Barker,  60  Mich.  277,  1  Am.  St.  Eep.  501,  27  N.  W. 
539. 

52  United  States  v.  Perez,  9  Wheat.  579,  6  L.  ed.  165;  United 
States  v.  Haskell,  4  Wash.  C.  C.  402,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,321;  People  v. 
Goodwin,  18  Johns.  187,  9  Am.  Dec.  203;  Hoffman  v.  State,  20  M.l. 
425;  State  v.  Moor,  Walk.  134,  12  Am.  Dec.  541;  Commonwealth  v. 
Merrill,  Thach.  C.  C.  1;  Commonwealth  v.  Fitzpatrick,  121  Pa.  St. 
109,  6  Am.  St.  Eep.  757,  15  Atl.  466,  1  L.  E.  A.  451. 

53  United  States  v.  Haskell,  4  Wash.  C.  C.  410,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
15,321. 

54  United  States  v.  Perez,  9  Wheat.  579,  6  L.  ed.  165;  Thompson 
v.  United  States,  155  U.  S.  274,  15  S.  Ct.  73,  39  L.  ed.  146;  United 
States  v.  Gilbert,  2  Sum.  19,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,204;  Commonwealth  v. 
Cook,  6  Serg.  &  E.  577,  19  Am.  Dec.  465;  United  States  v.  Wilson, 
Baldw.  95,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,730;  United  States  v.  Keen,  1  McLean, 
434,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,510. 

55  United  States  v.  Haskell,  4  Wash.  C.  C.  402,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,321. 

56  Commonwealth  v.  Merrill,  Thach.   C.   C.  1. 

57  Simmons  v.  United  States,  142  U.  S.  155,  12  S.  Ct.  171,  35  L. 
ed.  968;  United  States  v.  Morris,  1  Curt.  23,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,815. 

58  United  States  v.  Perez,  9  Wheat.  580,  6  L.  ed.  165;  Thompson 
v.  United  States,  155  U.  S.  274,  15  S.  Ct.  73,  39  L.  ed.  146;  Dreyer 
v.  Illinois,  187  U.  S.  71,  23  S.  Ct.  78,  47  L.  ed.  79;  People  v.  Goodwin, 
]8  Johns.  187,  9  Am.  Dec.  203. 

59  State  v.  Moor,  Walk.  134,  12  Am.  Dec.  541. 


Am.  V  Rights  of  Accused.  63-i 

count  of  the  absence  of  witnesses,  a  subsequent  trial  is  not 
thereby  prevented.60 

Where  a  jury  has  been  impaneled  and  sworn  by  inadvertence 
before  the  argument,  the  proceeding  may  be  disregarded  and  a 
jury  impaneled  in  the  regular  order.61 

The  court  may,  in  its  discretion,  discharge  the  jury  in  a 
capital  case  as  well  as  in  a  case  of  misdemeanor,62  and  a  de- 
fendant cannot  base  a  plea  of  former  jeopardy  on  the  ground 
that  the  court,  of  its  own  motion,  discharged  the  jury,  upon  its 
failure  to  agree,  without  the  defendant's  consent;63  but  a  de- 
fendant cannot  be  deprived  of  his  right  to  the  plea  by  the  un- 
necessary discharge  of  the  jury  without  his  consent.64 

A  verdict'  of  acquittal,  although  not  followed  by  any  judg- 
ment, is  a  bar  to  a  subsequent  prosecution  for  the  same  offense,65 
and  when  a  verdict  of  guilty  is  rendered,  jeopardy  attaches  al- 
though judgment  is  arrested  for  want  of  arraignment  and 
plea.66  So  if  the  prosecuting  attorney  enters  a  nolle  prosequi 
after  the  jury  has  been  impaneled  and  sworn,  the  accused  has 
been  placed  in  jeopardy,67  if  the  court  had  jurisdiction.68  Re- 
sentencing a  prisoner  upon  the  same  verdict  is  not  putting  him 
twice  in  jeopardy  for  the  same  offense.6Sa 

Where  either  a  fine  or  imprisonment  may  be  imposed,  the 
court  cannot,  after  payment  of  the  fine,  render  a  new  judg- 

60  Hoffman  v.  State,  20  Md.  425.  And  see  United  States  v.  Wat- 
son, 3  Ben.  1,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,651. 

61  United  States  v.  Riley,  5  Blatchf.  204,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,164. 

62  United  States  v.  Haskell,  4  Wash.  C.  C.  402,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
15,321. 

63  Logan  v.  United  States,  144  U.  S.  297,  12  S.  Ct.  617,  36  L.  erl. 
429. 

64  Ex  parte  Glenn,  111  Fed.  257;  State  v.  Ward,  48  Ark.  36,  3 
Am.  St.  Eep.  213,  2  S.  W.  191. 

65  United  States  v.  Ball,  163  U.  S.  671,  16  S.  Ct.  1192,  42  L.  el. 
.300. 

66  State  v.  Parish,  43  Wis.  395.  And  see  State  v.  Norvell,  2  Yerg. 
24,  24  Am.  Dec.  458. 

67  United  States  v.  Shoemaker,  2  McLean,  114,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,279. 

68  Thompson  v.  State,  6  Neb.  107;  Commonwealth  v.  Peters,  53 
Mass.  387;  State  v.  Odell,  4  Blackf.   156. 

68a  McDonald  v.  State,  79  Wis.  651,  24  Am.  St.  Kep.  740,  50  N. 
W.  185. 


635  Eights  of  Accused.  Am.  V 

merit  of  imprisonment.69  Where,  however,  a  penalty  of  fine 
and  imprisonment  is  provided  for  an  offense,  the  recovery  of 
the  fine  in  a  civil  action  and  the  punishment  by  imprisonment 
in  a  criminal  action  do  not  put  the  accused  twice  in  jeopardy.70 
The  phrase  "life  and  limb,"  as  here  used,  would,  if  strictly 
construed,  confine  the  cases  wherein  the  plea  of  jeopardy  could 
be  raised  to  a  very  narrow  compass;  but  the  courts  have  con- 
strued it  liberally,  and  have  held  it  to  embrace  all  cases  wherein 
a  second  prosecution  is  attempted  for  the  same  offense,  whether 
felony  or  misdemeanor.71  In  order  that  the  plea  may  be  ef- 
fective, however,  the  prosecution  must  be  for  the  "same  of- 
fense/1"72 

The  usual  test  of  the  identity  of  the  offenses  may  be  thus  ex- 
pressed :  "Unless  the  first  indictment  were  such  as  the  prisoner 
might  have  been  convicted,  upon  by  proof  of  the  facts  contained 
in  the  second  indictment,  an  acquittal  on  the  first  indictment 
can  be  no  bar  to  the  second."73     Where  a  person  is  convicted 

69  Ex  parte  Lange,  18  Wall.  170,  21  L.  ed.  872.  But  see  Brown  v. 
Swineford,  44  Wis.  282,  28  Am.  Eep.  582. 

70  In  re  Leszynsky,  16  Blatchf.  9,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8279. 

71  Ex  parte  Lange,  18  Wall.  163,  21  L.  ed.  872;  Berkowitz  v. 
United  States,  93  Fed.  452;  Williams  v.  Commonwealth,  78  Ky.  93; 
State  v.  Cheevers,  7  La.  Ann.  40;  Commonwealth  v.  Boby,  12  Pick. 
496;  State  v.  Behimer,  20  Ohio  St.  572;  Jones  v.  Commonwealth,  20 
Gratt.  848.  See,  also,  People  v.  Miner,  144  111.  308,  33  N.  E.  40,  19  L. 
E.  A.  342. 

72  Ex  parte  Lange,  18  Wall  168,  21  L.  ed.  872;  Fox  v.  Ohio,  5  How. 
439,  12  L.  ed.  213;  In  re  Snow,  120  II.  S.  286,  7  S.  Ct.  556,  30  L.  ed. 
658;  Cross  v.  North  Carolina,  132  U.  S.  133,  10  S.  Ct.  47,  33  L.  ed. 
287. 

73  Berkowitz  v.  United  States,  93  Fed.  452;  United  States  v. 
Flecke,  2  Ben.  456,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,120;  Dominiek  v.  State,  40  Ala. 
.680,  91  Am.  Dec.  496;  Hall  v.  State,  134  Ala.  90,  32  South.  750;  People 
v.  Defoor,  100  Cal.  150,  34  Pac.  642;  Guenther  v.  People,  22  Colo.  121, 
43  Pac.  999;  Durham  v.  People,  4  Scam.  172,  39  Am.  Dec.  407;  Camp- 
Veil  v.  People,  109  111.  565,  50  Am.  Eep.  621;  State  v.  Eosenbaum,  23 
Ind.  App.  236,  77  Am.  St.  Eep.  432,  55  N.  E.  110;  State  v.  Ingalli, 
98  Iowa,  728,  68  N.  W.  445;  Commonwealth  v.  Vaughn,  101  Ky.  603, 
42  S.  W.  117,  45  L.  E.  A.  858;  State  v.  Littlefield,  70  Me.  452,  35 
Am.  Eep.  335;  State  v.  Williams,  152  Mo.  115,  75  Am.  St.  Eep.  441, 
53  S.  W.  424;  People  v.  McGowan,  17  Wend.  386;  State  v.  Nash,  86 
N.  C.  650,  41  Am.  Eep.  472;  Hilands  v.  Commonwealth,  114  Pa.  St. 
372,  6  Atl.  267;  Williams  v.  State,  13  Tex.  App.  285,  46  Am.  Eep.  237. 


Am.  V  Rights  of  Accused.  G36 

of  a  crime  which  has  several  incidents  included  in  it,  a  second 
tiial  for  one  of  those  incidents  is  putting  him  twice  in  jeopardy.74 
In  order  that  acquittal  may  be  a  bar  to  a  subsequent  indictment 
for  a  lesser  crime,  it  is  essential  that  conviction  of  the  lesser 
crime  might  have  been  had  under  the  indictment  for  the 
greater;75  for  where  a  conviction  for  a  less  crime  cannot  be  had 
under  an  indictment  for  a  greater  which  includes  it,  while  ac- 
quittal would  not  be  a  bar,  a  conviction  of  the  greater  would 
involve  the  lesser  and  be  a  bar.76  And  this  is  true  where  the 
great  r  offense  is  a  felony,  and  t^e  lesser  a  misdemeanor.  When, 
therefore,  on  a  prosecution  for  a  felony  there  may  be  a  convic- 
tion for  an  ingredient  misdemeanor,  there  cannot  be  any  subse- 
quent prosecution  for  the  misdemeanor.77 

It  Hoes  not  follow  from  this  that  a  prosecution,  to  be  a  bar  to 
a  later  prosecution,  must  be  for  an  offense  of  a  higher  degree 
necessarily  including  the  offense  for  which  the  accused  is  in- 
dicted ;  a  prosecution  for  a  lesser  offense  necessarily  included,  in 
a  greater  is  a  bar  whenever  the  defendant  could  be  convicted  of 
the  lesser  on  an  indictment  for  the  greater.78     It  has  been  held 

74  Hans  Neilsen,  Petitioner,  131  TJ.  S.  188,  9  S.  Ct.  672,  33  L.  ed. 
118;  People  v.  Defoor,  100  Cal.  157,  3-4  Pac.  6-44;  Carter  v.  McClaughry, 
183  U.  S.  365,  22  S.  Ct.  181,  46  L.  ed.  236. 

75  Hans  Neilsen,  Petitioner,  131  U.  S.  190,  9  S.  Ct.  672,  33  L.  ed. 
118;  United  States  v.  Wilson,  7  Pet.  150,  8  L.  ed.  640;  People  v. 
McDaniels,  137  Cal.  192,  92  Am.  St.  Rep.  81,  69  Pac.  1006,  59  L.  E. 
A.  578;  Jones  v.  State,  66  Miss.  380,  14  Am.  St.  Eep.  570,  6  South. 
231;  Dinkey  v.  Commonwealth,  17  Pa.  St.  126,  55  Am.  Dec.  542. 

76  Hans  Neilsen,  Petitioner,  131  U.  S.  190,  9  S.  Ct.  672,  33  L.  ed. 
118. 

77  Henry  v.  State,  33  Ala.  389;  Moore  v.  State,  71  Ala.  307;  State 
v.  Hall,  50  Ark.  28,  6  S.  W.  20;  People  v.  McDaniels,  137  Cal.  192, 
92  Am.  St.  Eep.  81,  69  Pac.  1006,  59  L.  E.  A.  578;  Franklin  v.  State, 
85  Ga.  570;  State  v.  Smith,  43  Vt.  324. 

7S  Storrs  v.  State,  129  Ala.  101,  29  South.  778;  State  v.  Blevins, 
134  Ala.  213,  32  South.  637;  State  v.  Smith,  53  Ark.  24,  13  S.  W. 
391;  People  v.  Ny  Sam  Chung,  94  Cal.  304,  28  Am.  St.  Eep.  129,  29 
Pac.  642;  People  v.  McDaniels,  137  Cal.  192,  92  Am.  St.  Eep.  81,  69 
Pac.  1006,  59  L.  E.  A.  578;  Whilden  v.  State,  25  Ga.  396,  71  Am. 
Dec.  181;  Bell  v.  State,  103  Ga.  397,  6S  Am.  St.  Eep.  102,  30  S.  E. 
294;  State  v.  Gleason,  56  Towa,  203,  9  N.  W.  126;  State  v.  Wills,  26 
Minn.  381,  4  N.  W.  615;  State  v.  Hatcher,  136  Mo.  641,  3S  S.  W.  719; 
Commonwealth  v.  Amer,  149  Pa.  St.  35,  24  Atl.  S3;  Herera  v.  State, 


637  Eights  of  Accused.  Am.  V 

that  this  rule  would  apply  even  if  the  court  trying  the   lesser 
charge  had  no  jurisdiction  over  the  greater.79 

One  offense  cannot  be  split  up  into  several  so  that  a  prosecu- 
tion as  to  one  part  will  not  bar  a  prosecution  as  to  another;  e.  g., 
where  several  articles  are  taken  at  one  time  and  place  by  the 
same  act  of  theft.80  Where  there  are  several  takings,  however, 
this  rule  has  no  application.81  On  the  same  principle,  it  has 
been  held  that  where  a  person  is  charged  under  separate  indict- 
ments for  robbing  several  individual  passengers  on  the  same 
stage  at  the  same  time,  acquittal  or  conviction  under  one  indicts 
ment  is  no  bar  to  prosecution  under  the  others. S2  Where  sev- 
eral persons  are  injured  or  killed  in  the  same  affray  or  about  the 
same  point  of  time,  the  assaults  or  homicides  are  generally  de- 
clared to  be  distinct  offenses.83  The  acquittal  of  a  defendant  on 
the  issue  of  insanity  on  a  trial  for  murder  does  not  render  the 
plea  of  former  jeopardy  available  in  a  later  prosecution  for  an- 
other murder  committed  on  the  same  day.84 

35  Tex.  Cr.  607,  34  S.  W.  943;  People  v.  Arnold,  46  Mich,  268,  9  N. 
W.  406. 

79  People  v.  MeDaniels,  137  Cal.  192,  92  Am.  St.  Rep.  81,  69  Pac. 
1C06,  59  L.  E.  A.  578;  Commonwealth  v.  Bosworth,  113  Mass.  200, 
18  Am.  Eep.  467. 

80  United  States  v.  John,  4  Cr.  C.  C.  336,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,479; 
United  States  v.  Lee,  4  Cr.  C.  C.  446,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  446;  State  v. 
Elder,  65  Ind.  282,  32  Am.  Rep.  69;  State  v.  Egglesht,  41  Iowa,  574, 
21  Am.  Eep.  612;  Fisher  v.  Commonwealth,  1  Bush  (Ky.),  211,  S9 
Am.  Dec.  620;  State  v.  Emery,  68  Vt.  109,  54  Am.  St.  Eep.  878,  34 
Atl.  432. 

81  State  v.  English,  14  Mont.  399,  36  Pac.  815;  Willis  v.  State,  24 
Tex.  App.  586,  6  S.  W.  857;  Phillips  v.  State,  85  Tenn.  551,  3  S.  W. 
434. 

82  In  re  Allison,  13  Colo.  525,  16  Am.  St.  Eep.  224,  22  Pac.  820, 
10  L.  E,  A.   790. 

S3  Crocker  v.  State,  47  Ga.  568;  Greenwood  v.  State,  64  Ind.  250; 
Baker  v.  Commonwealth,  20  Ky.  Law  Eep.  879,  47  S.  W.  864;  People 
v.  Ochotski,  115  Mich.  601,  73  N.  W.  889;  Jones  v.  State,  66  Miss.  380, 
14  Am.  St.  Eep.  570,  6  South.  231;  State  v.  Evans,  33  W.  Va.  417, 
10  S.  E.  792. 

84  Hotema  v.  United  States,  186  U.  S.  413,  22  S.  Ct.  S95,  46  L. 
ed.  1225. 


Am.  V  Eights  of  Accused.  638 

The  possession  of  several  forged  instruments  at  the  same  time 
constitutes  one  offense,  which  cannot  be  split  up  into  as  many 
offenses  as  there  are  instruments.85  And  the  counterfeiting  of 
notes  at  different  times,  although  from  the  same  plate,  consti- 
tutes distinct  offenses.86 

The  conviction  of  an  offense  as  a  principal  is  not  a  bar  to 
a  prosecution  for  a  conspiracy  to  commit  the  same  offense.87 

A  plea  that  the  same  bank  bill  which  the  defendant  is  charged 
with  passing  was  given  in  evidence  under  a  former  indictment 
of  the  same  character,  when  the  defendant  was  acquitted  does 
not  show  identity  of  offenses.88 

Where  the  same  act  constitutes  an  offense  against  two  juris- 
dictions, it  is  settled  that  it  may  be  punished  by  either  or  both 
without  violating  this  amendment.89 

A  statute  providing  for  a  heavier  sentence  in  case  of  a  prior 
conviction  does  not  place  the  accused  twice  in  jeopardy.90 

The  provision  is  intended  to  shield  the  prisoner  from  a  sec- 
ond trial  except  at  his  election  and  request,  which  is  manifested 
by  his  application  for  a  new  trial,91  but  a  convicted  person  can- 

85  United  States  v.  Miner,  11  Blatchf.  511;  State  v.  Benkain,  7 
Conn.  414. 

86  Bliss  v.  United  States,  105  Fed.  508. 

87  Whitford  v.  State,  24  Tex.  App.  489,  5  Am.  St.  Eep.  896,  6  S. 
W.  537;  Davis  v.  People,  22  Colo.  1,  43  Pae.  122.  But  see  Eeynolds 
v.  People,  83  111.  479,  25  Am.  Eep.  410. 

88  United  States  v.  Kandenbush,  8  Pet.  289,  8  L.  ed.  948. 

so  United  States  v.  Hood,  2  Cr.  C.  C.  133,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,385; 
United  States  v.  Wells,  2  Cr.  C.  C.  45,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,662;  Englehart 
v.  State,  88  Ala.  100,  7  South.  154;  Van  Buren  v.  Wells,  53  Ark.  368, 
22  Am.  St.  Rep.  214,  14  S.  W.  38;  Hunt  v.  Jacksonville,  38  Fla.  501, 
43  Am.  St.  Eep.  214,  16  South.  398;  MeRae  v.  Mayor,  59  Ga.  168,  27 
Am.  Eep.  390;  Kemper  v.  Commonwealth,  85  Ky.  219,  7  Am.  St. 
Eep.  593,  3  S.  W.  159;  State  v.  Reid,  115  N.  C.  741,  20  S.  E.  468; 
Anderson  v.  O'Donnell,  29  S.  C.  355,  13  Am.  St.  Eep.  728,  7  S.  E.  523, 
1  L.  E.  A.  632.  And  see  Crossley  v.  California,  16S  U.  S.  6-41,  18 
S.  Ct.  242,  42  L.  ed.  610. 

90  McDonald  v.  Massachusetts,  180  U.  S.  313,  21  S.  Ct.  389,  45  L. 
cd.  542,  affirming  173  Mass.  322,  73  Am.  St.  Eep.  293,  53  N.  E.  874; 
People  v.  Stanley,  47  Cal.  113,  17  Am.  Eep.  401;  State  v.  Moore,  121 
Mo.  514,  42  Am.  St.  Eep.  542,  26  S.  W.  345. 

9i  United  States  v.  Shoemaker,  2  McLean,  114,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
16,279. 


639  Eights  of  Accused.  Am.  V 

not,  by  his  own  act,  avoid  the  jeopardy  in  which  he  stands,  and 
then  assert  it  as  a  bar  to  subsequent  jeopardy.92  The  protec- 
tion afforded  by  this  amendment  may  be  waived  by  the  ac- 
cused.93 

Privilege  of  Witness. 

The  object  of  this  part  of  the  Fifth  Amendment  is  to  insure 
a  witness,  in  any  investigation  in  the  federal  courts,  against 
being  compelled  to  give  testimony  which  might  tend  to  incrim- 
inate him.94  It  applies,  however,  only  to  criminal  cases,95  and 
the  term  "criminal  case"  means  a  prosecution  for  a  criminal 
offense  against  the  party  who  is  a  witness.96  The  provision 
must  have  a  broad  construction  in  favor  of  the  right  it  is  in- 
tended to  secure.97  Forcing  a  person  to  be  a  witness  against 
himself  is  contrary  to  the  principles  of  a  republican  govern- 
ment.98 In  England  "nemo  tenetur  seipsum  accusare"  is  a 
mere  rule  of  evidence,  while  in  the  United  States  it  is  a  consti- 
tutional right,99  based  upon  the  ancient  principle  that  a  witness 
cannot  be  compelled  to  give  testimony  tending  to  criminate  or 
subject  him  to  fines,  penalties  or  forfeitures.100 

While  the  term  "criminal  case"  contemplates  a  case  involv- 
ing punishment  for  crime  in  an  ordinary  criminal  proceeding,101 

92  Murphy  v.  Massachusetts,  177  U.  S.  158,  20  S.  Ct.  630,  44 
L.  ed.  711. 

93  Veateh  v.  State,  60  Ind.  291. 

94  Counselman  v.  Hitchcock,  142  IT.  S.  562,  12  S.  Ct.  195,  35  L. 
ed.  1110. 

95  Ex  parte  Meador,  1  Abb.  IT.  S.  317,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9275;  Ex 
parte  Strouse,  1  Saw.  605,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,548;  In  re  Phillips,  10 
Int.  Eev.  Eec.  107,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,097. 

96  Counselman  v.  Hitchcock,  142  U.  S.  562,  12  S.  Ct.  195,  35  L. 
ed.  1110. 

97  Counselman  v.  Hitchcock,  142  U.  S.  562,  12  S.  Ct.  195,  35  L.  ed. 
1110;  Ex  parte  Senior,  37  Fla.  17,  19  South.  654,  32  L.  E.  A.  133. 

98  Wyneham  v.  People,  13  N.  Y.  392. 

99  Brown  v.  Walker,  161  U.  S.  596,  16  S.  Ct.  644,  40  L.  ed.  819. 

100  Counselman  v.  Hitchcock,  142  U.  S.  563,  12  S.  Ct.  995,  35  L. 
ed.  1110. 

ioi  United  States  v.  Parker,  21  Int.  Eev.  Eec.  251,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
15,993. 


Am.  V  Eights  of  Accused.  640 

or  a  prosecution  against  a  public  officer  on  a  charge  of  miscon- 
duct,102 yet  under  the  broad  construction  necessary  a  civil  suit 
to  recover  a  penalty  for  violating  a  law  is  criminal  in  its  nature 
and  the  defendant  cannot  be  compelled  to  testify;103  and  the 
rule  has  been  extended  to  an  examination  in  bankruptcy.104 
The  privilege  is  not  confined  to  the  actual  proceeding  against  a 
person  in  court,  but  extends  to  proceedings  before  a  grand 
jury.105  The  seizure  or  compulsory  production  of  a  person's 
private  papers  to  be  used  in  a  suit  for  a  forfeiture  for  a  viola- 
tion of  law  is  equivalent  to  compelling  him  to  be  a  witness 
against  himself.106 

The  provision  was  not,  however,  intended  to  shield  a  witness 
from  infamy  or  disgrace  resulting  from  incriminating  testimony, 
but  only  from  actual  prosecution  and  punishment.107  So  if 
prosecution  for  the  crime  is  barred,  a  witness  may  not  refuse 
to  testify.108 

The  privilege  does  not  obtain  where  the  statute  under  which 
a  proceeding  is  had  secures  the  constitutional  right  by  providing 
that  no  testimony  given  by  a  witness  shall  be  offered  in  evi- 
dence against  him  in  any  criminal  proceeding,109  and  that  he 
shall  be  exempt  from  prosecution  for  any  offense  disclosed  by 
his  testimony.110 

102  United  States  v.  Collins,  1  Woods,  499,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,837. 

103  Lees  v.  United  States,  150  U.  S.  4S0,  14  S.  Ct.  163,  37  L.  ed. 
1150. 

104  In  re  Kosser,  96  Fed.  308. 

105  Counselman  v.  Hitchcock,  143  U.  S.  562,  12  S.  Ct.  995,  35  L. 
ed.  1110;  United  States  v.  Edgerton,  80  Fed.  376;  Ex  parte  Clarke, 
103  Cal.  354,  37  Pae.  231;  Ex  parte  Wilson,  39  Tex.  Cr.  638,  47  S.  W. 
1000. 

106  Boyd  v.  United  States,  116  U.  S.  616,  6  S.  Ct.  524,  29  L.  ed. 
741;  McKnight  v.  United  States,  115  Fed.  972. 

107  Brown  v.  Walker,  161  U.  S.  598,  16  S.  Ct.  644,  40  L.  ed.  819, 
affirming  70  Fed.  46. 

108  Brown  v.  Walker,  161  U.  S.  598,  16  S.  Ct.  644,  40  L.  ed.  819. 
And  see  Eobertson  v.  Baldwin,  165  U.  S.  282,  17  S.  Ct.  329,  41  L. 
ed.  715. 

109  Mackel  v.  Kochester,  102  Fed.  314. 

no  In  re  Walsh,  104  Fed.  519;  Foot  v.  Buchanan,  113  Fed.  156. 


6-il  Due  Process  of  Law.  Am.  V 

A  witness  may  waive  the  right  to  refuse  to  testify  on  the 
ground  that  his  testimony  would  tend  to  incriminate  him;111 
but  the  waiver  must  be  voluntary  and  with  a  knowledge  of  his 
rights.112  When  a  defendant  in  a  criminal  trial  offers  himself 
as  a  witness  in  his  own  behalf  he  is  subject  to  cross-examina- 
tion.113 He  then  loses  his  character  as  a  defendant  and  becomes 
a  witness,  and  may  be  examined  as  fully  as  any  other  witness.114 

A  witness  cannot  avoid  answering  a  question  by  the  mere 
statement  that  the  answer  would  tend  to  incriminate  him,  with- 
out regard  to  whether  the  statement  is  reasonable  or  not;  such 
question  is  for  the  court  to  determine.115  Unless  the  court  can 
see  that  the  witness  will  not  be  incriminated,  the  privilege 
should  be  recognized  and  protected;116  but  a  witness  will  not  be 
permitted  to  make  fraudulent  use  of  his  privilege,  and  when 
the  court  can  discover  no  reason  why  the  answer  would  be  in- 
criminating, it  should  deny  the  privilege  or  make  further  in- 
vestigation.117 An  action  to  enforce  a  forfeiture  of  imports 
for  nonpayment  of  duty  is  not  a  criminal  prosecution.118 

Due  Process  of  Law.* 

The  Fifth  Amendment  applies  the  constitutional  provision  for 
due  process  of  law  to  the  national  government  alone.119     The 

in  Brown  v.  Walker,  161  U.  S.  596,  16  S.  Ct.  644,  40  L.  ed.  819; 
Fries  v.  Brugler,  12  N.  J.  L.  79,  21  Am.  Dec.  52. 

up.  United  States  v.  Bell,  81  Fed.  851.  But  see  United  States  v. 
Kimball,  117  Fed.  156. 

H3  Spies  v.  Illinois,  123  U.  S.  131,  8  S.  Ct.  21,  31  L.  ed.  80. 

U4  Samuel  v.  People,  164  111.  379,  45  N.  E.  728;  People  v.  Tice,  131 
N.  Y.  651,  30  N.  E.  494,  15  L.  E.  A.  669;  State  v.  Duncan,  7  Wash. 
336,  38  Am.  St.  Rep.  888,  35  Pac.  117;  State  v.  Thomas,  98  N.  C.  599, 
2  Am.  St.  Rep.  351,  4  S.  E.  518;  Ex  parte  Parke,  37  Tex.  Cr.  590,  66 
Am.   St.   Rep.   835,   40   S.   W.   300. 

H5  Ex  parte  Irvine,  74  Fed.  954;  Foot  v.  Buchanan,  113  Fed.  156. 

U6  Janvrin  v.  Scammon,  29  N.  H.  280;  Coburn  v.  Odell,  30  N.  II. 
540. 

117  State  v.  Kent,  5  N.  Dak.  516,  67  N.  W.  1052,  35  L.  R.  A.  518; 
People  v.  Mather,  4  Wend.  230,  21  Am.  Dec.  122. 

us  United  States  v.  Zucker,  161  U.  S.  481,  16  S.  Ct.  643,  40  L.  ed. 
777. 

H9  Davidson  v.  New  Orleans,  96  U.  S.  101,  24  L.  ed.  616;  In  ro 
Sawyer,  124  U.  S.  219,  8  S.  Ct.  482,  24  L.  ed.  616. 

♦For  prohibition  as  applied  to  states,  see  post,  p.  708  et  sep. 
Notes  on  Constitution — 41 


Am.  V  Due  Process  of  Law.  G42 

supreme  court  has  declared  that  the  phrase  "due  process  of  law" 
remains  without  precise  definition;  that  its  meaning  should  be 
ascertained  by  the  gradual  process  of  judicial  inclusion  and  ex- 
clusion, as  cases  presented  require.120  However  this  may  be, 
the  courts,  both  federal  and  state,  have  in  many  cases  endeav- 
ored to  frame  a  definition  which  would  cover  all  cases.  It  has 
been  said  to  be  the  due  course  of  legal  proceedings  according 
to  rules  established  for  the  protection  of  private  rights;121  such 
an  exertion  of  the  powers  of  government  as  the  settled  maxims 
of  the  law  permit  and  sanction;1"2  law  in  its  regular  course  of 
administration  through  courts  of  justice;123  a  timely  and  regu- 
lar proceeding  to  judgment  and  execution;124  notice  to  a  per- 
son of  proceedings  against  him,  and  a  right  to  be  heard  in  his 
own  behalf;123  a  trial  in  which  the  rights  of  the  party  shall  be 
decided  by  a  tribunal  appointed  by  law  and  governed  by  rules 
of  law  previously  established.126 

Some  of  the  courts  have  found  an  equivalent  of  the  phrase  in 
the  words  "law  of  the  land,"127  which  has  been  defined  to  be  that 
law  which  secures  the  individual  from  the  arbitrary  exercise  of 

120  Davidson  v.  New  Orleans,  96  TJ.  S.  104,  24  L.  ed.  616. 
1.21   Kennard  v.   Louisiana,  92   U.   S.   481,  23  L.   ed.  478;   Scott   v. 
McNeal,  154  TJ.  S.  46,  14  S.  Ct.  1108,  38  L.  ed.  896. 

122  Bertholf  v.  O'Eielly,  74  N.  Y.  509,  30  Am.  Eep.  323;  In  re 
Ah  Fook,  49  Cal.  402. 

123  Barker  v.  Kelly,  11  Minn.  480;  Eowan  v.  State,  30  Wis.  129, 
11  Am.  Eep.  559;  State  v.  Becht,  23  Minn.  413;  Brown  v.  New  Jersey, 
175  TJ.  S.  176,  20  S.  Ct.  77,  44  L.  ed.  119;  Leeper  v.  Texas,  139  TJ.  S. 
468,  11  S.  Ct.  577,  35  L.  ed.  225. 

124  Dwight  v.  "Williams,  4  McLean,  586,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4218. 

125  Gilmore  v.  Sapp,  100  111.  297;  Hovey  v.  Elliott,  167  U.  S.  417, 
17  S.  Ct.  841,  42  L.  ed.  215. 

12C  Kilbourn  v.  Thompson,  103  TJ.  S.  182,  26  L.  ed.  377;  State  v. 
Guilbert,  56  Ohio  St.  575,  60  Am.  St.  Eep.  756,  47  N.  E.  551. 

127  Den  v.  Hoboken  Land  etc.  Co.,  18  How.  276,  15  L.  ed.  372; 
Bank  of  Columbia  v.  Okely,  4  Wheat.  244,  4  L.  ed.  559;  Ex  parte 
Wall,  107  TJ.  S.  2,89,  2  S.  Ct.  569,  27  L.  ed.  552;  In  re  Meador,  1  Abb. 
TJ.  S.  331,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9375;  Harding  v.  People,  160  111.  459,  52 
Am.  St.  Eep.  344,  43  N.  E.  624,  32  L.  E.  A.  445;  James  v.  Eeynolds, 
2  Tex.  251;  Sta^e  v.  Julow,  129  Mo.  163,  50  Am.  St.  Eep.  443,  31  S.  W. 
781,  29  L.  E.  A.  257. 


643  Due  Process  of  Law.  Am.  V 

the  powers  of  government,  unrestrained  by  the  established  prin- 
ciples of  private  rights  and  distributive  justice,128  or  "the  gen- 
eral law,  a  law  which  hears  before  it  condemns;  which  proceeds 
upon  inquiry  and  renders  judgment  only  after  trial."1?29  As 
used  in  this  amendment  it  refers  to  the  law  deriving  its  author- 
ity from  legislative  powers  conferred  upon  Congress  by  the  con- 
stitution, exercised  within  the  limits  therein  prescribed  and  in- 
terpreted   according  to  principles  of  common  law.130 

From  these  definitions  it  will  be  seen  that  the  term-  "due  pro- 
cess" generally  implies  and  includes  parties,  judge,  regular  al- 
legations, opportunity  to  answer,  and  a  trial  according  to  some 
settled  course  of  judicial  proceedings;131  a  legal  proceeding 
under  the  direction  of  a  court;132  a  tribunal  of  competent  juris- 
diction, and  a  sufficient  service  on  the  defendant,  or  an  ap- 
pearance on  his  part  to  render  him  amenable  to  that  jurisdic- 
tion,133 and  it  would  seem  that  the  requirement  would  be  satis- 
fied if  a  person  were  afforded  an  adequate  remedy  before  a  court 
of  competent  jurisdiction.134  But  that  the  phrase  means  a«trial 
according  to  some  settled  course  of  procedure  is  not  universally 
true;135  nor  does  it  necessarily  import  a  jury  trial.136 

128  Bank  of  Columbia  v.  Okely,  4  Wheat.  244,  4  L.  ed.  559. 

129  Argument  of  Webster  in  Trustees  Dartmouth  College  v.  Wood- 
ward, 4  Wheat.  581,  4  L.  ed.  629. 

130  Hurtado  v.  California,  110  U.  S.  535,  4  S.  Ct.  292,  28  L.  ed.  232. 

131  Den  v.  Hoboken  Land  etc.  Co.,  18  How.  280,  15  L.  ed.  372; 
Huber  v.  Reily,  53  Pa.  St.  112;  Rees  v.  City  of  Watertown,  19  Wall. 
122,  22  L.  ed.  72;  Westervelt  v.  Gregg,  12  N.  Y.  202,  62  Am.  Dee. 
160. 

132  Newcomb  v.  Smith,  1  Chand.  71. 

133  Pennoyer  v.  Neff,  95  U.  S.  733,  24  L.  ed.  565;  Parsons  v.  Rus- 
sell, 11  Mich.  113,  83  Am.  Dec.  728. 

134  Chicago  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  State,  47  Neb.  549,  53  Am.  St.  Rep. 
557,  66  N.  W.  624,  41  L.  R.  A.  4S1;  Rouse  v.  Donovan,  104  Mich.  234, 
53  Am.  St.  Rep.  457,  62  N.  W.  359,  27  L.  R.  A.  577. 

135  Den  v.  Hoboken  Land  etc.  Co.,  18  How.  272,  15  L.  ed.  372; 
Greene  v.  Briggs,  1  Curt.  311,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5764;  Hope  v.  Henderson, 
4  Dev.  15,  25  Am.  Dec.  677;  Taylor  v.  Porter,  4  Hill,  140,  40  Am. 
Dec.  274;  Van  Zandt  v.  Waddell,  2  Yerg.  260;  State  Bank  v.  Cooper, 
2  Yerg.  599;  Jones  v.  Perry,  10  Yerg.  59,  3  Am.  Dec.  430. 

136  Ex  parte  Meador,  1  Abb.  IT.  S.  317,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9375;  Mon- 
tana Co.  v.  St.  Louis  Min.  etc.  Co.,  152  U.  S.  170,  14  S.  Ct.  506,  33 
L.  ed.  398. 


Am.  V  Due  Process  of  Law.    .  644 

The  right  of  appeal  and  the  requirement  of  a  hond  on  appeal 
are  not  essential  to  the  requirement,137  nor  are  rehearings  or 
new  trials  necessary  in  order  that  a  person  may  have  due  pro- 
cess of  law.138 

The  term  does  not  necessarily  imply  delay,139  nor  preclude 
summary  proceedings.140 

The  term  "law  of  the  land"  is  not  to  be  taken  as  including 
everything  which  may  pass  under  the  form  of  statutory  enact- 
ment; in  order  to  be  "due  process"  a  law  must  be  in  accord 
with  the  constitution.141 

In  determining  what  is  due  process  of  law,  regard  must  be 
had  to  the  substance,  not  to  the  form,  of  the  proceeding,142  and 
in  all  cases  that  kind  of  procedure  is  due  process  which  is  suit- 
able and  proper  to  the  nature  of  the  case,  and  sanctioned  by  the 
established  usages  and  customs  of  the  court.143  If,  upon  ex- 
amination, an  act  passed  by  Congress  is  shown  not  to  be  in 
conflict  with  the  constitution,  regard  should  be  had  to  the  law 
and  usage  in  England  obtaining  before  the  Declaration  of  In- 
dependence to  see  if  it  acocrds  with  the  process  prescribed  by 
Congress.144     Under  this  amendment  one  cannot  be  condemned 

137  Montana  Co.  v.  St.  Louis  Min.  etc.  Co.,  152  U.  S.  170,  14  S. 
Ct.  506,  38  L.  ed.  398;  State  v.  Prather,  19  Wash.  340,  67  Am.  St. 
Eep.  731,  53  Pac.  345. 

138  Pittsburgh  etc.  By.  Co.  v.  Backus,  154  U.  S.  426,  14  S.  Ct. 
1114,  38  L.  ed.  3  031;  Indianapolis  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Backus,  154  U.  S. 
439,  14  S.  Ct.  1114,  3S  L.  ed.  1040;  Fallbrook  Irr.  Dist.  v.  Bradley, 
164  U.  S.  169,  17  S.  Ct.  56,  41  L.  ed.  369. 

139  Kennard  v.  Louisiana,  92  TJ.  S.  483,  23  L.  ed.  478. 

140  Davidson  v.  New  Orleans,  96  TJ.  S.  103,  24  L.  ed.  616;  Iowa 
Central  Ey.  v.  Iowa,  160  U.  S.  393,  16  S.  Ct.  344,  40  L.  ed.  467;  Mar- 
tin v.  Mott,  12  Wheat.  19,  6  L.  ed.  537;  United  States  v.  Ferreira,  13 
How.  40,  14  L.  ed.  42. 

141  Den  v.  Hoboken  Land  Co.,  18  How.  277,  15  L.  ed.  372; 
State  v.  Julow,  129  Mo.  163,  50  Am.  St.  Eep.  443,  31  S.  W.  7S1,  29  L. 
E.  A.  257. 

142  Chicago  etc.  Ey.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  166  U.  S.  235,  17  S.  Ct.  581, 
41  L.  ed.  979. 

143  Ex  parte  Wall,  107  U.  S.  289,  2  S.  Ct.  569,  27  L.  ed.  552. 

144  Den  v.  Hoboken  Land  etc.  Co.,  18  How.  277,  15  L.  ed.  372; 
Lowe  v.  Kansas,  163  U.  S.  85,  16  S.  Ct.  1031,  41  L.  ed.  78. 


645  Due  Peocess  of  Law.  Am.  V 

as  to  his  person  or  property  without  opportunity  to  be  heard ;]  45 
but  a  person  who  has  offered  no  defense  when  given  an  op- 
portunity to  do  so  cannot  assert  that  he  was  denied  due  process 
by  a  previous  judgment  cutting  off  his  defense/46  and  where 
a  defendant  did  actually  appeal  and  have  his  rights  determined, 
he  cannot  claim  that  he  was  denied  due  process  by  the  initial 
proceedings.147  A  hearing  upon  the  question  of  the  benefit  to 
be  derived  from  a  public  improvement  is  not  necessary  if  the 
owner  has  notice  and  an  opportunity  to  contest  the  assess- 
ment.148 A  statute  which  provides  for  a  trial  and  notice 
thereof  for  giving  a  hearing,  and  for  deliberation  and  judgment, 
and  for  an  appeal,  cannot  be  in  violation  of  this  amendment,143 
and  proceedings,  whether  ex  parte  or  adversary,  which  result  in 
depriving  a  person  of  his  private  property,  are  not  wanting  in 
due  process  of  law,  if  such  person  has  consented  thereto  in  ad- 
vance.1 50 

Provisions  for  searches  and  seizures  to  aid  in  the  collection  of 
the  revenue  are  not  repugnant  to  this  prohibition.151  So,  also, 
processes  for  seizure  and  assessment  are  within  the  discretion  of 
Congress,152  and  a  warrant  issued  against  a  public  debtor  for 
the  seizure  of  his  property  under  an  act  of  Congress  is  valid.153 
But  Congress  cannot  provide  for  the  absolute  forfeiture  of  land 
as  a  penalty  for  the  nonpayment  of  taxes,  without  any  process 
whatever.154     A  confiscation  act  does  not  authorize  seizure  and 

145  Lasere  v.  Roehereau,  17  Wall.  438,  21  L.  ed.  694;  Orchard  v. 
Alexander,  157  U.  S.  383,  15  S.  Ct.  635,  39  L.  ed.  737. 

146  Louisville  etc.  R.  E.  v.  Schmidt,  177  U.  S.  239,  20  S.  Ct.  620, 
44  L.  ed.  747. 

147  Gallup  v.  Schmidt,  183  IT.  S.  307,  22  S.  Ct.  162,  46  L.  ed.  207. 

148  Goodrich  v.  Detroit,  184  TJ.  S.  439,  22  S.  Ct.  397,  46  L.  ed.  627. 

149  Pearson  v.  Yewdall,  95  TJ.  S.   294,  24  L.  ed.  436. 

150  Murdoch  v.  Cincinnati,  39  Fed.  891. 

151  In  re  Piatt,  7  Ben.  261,  Fed.  Cas.  Xo.  11,212;  Murray  v.  Ho- 
boken  etc.  Co.,  18  How.  277,  15  L.  ed.  372;  Ames  v.  Port  Huron  etc. 
Co.,  11  Mich.  139,  83  Am.  Dec.  731. 

152  Davidson  v.  New  Orleans,  9©  TJ.  S.  97,  24  L.  ed.  616;  Pullaa 
v.  Kinsinger,  2  Abb.  TJ.  S.  94,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,463. 

153  Springer  v.  TJnited  States,  102  TJ.  S.  594,  26  L.  ed.  253;  Kelly 
v.  Pittsburgh,  104  TJ.  S.  78,  26  L.  ed.  658. 

154  In  re  Ah  Chong,  6  Saw.  461,  2  Fed.  733;  Martin  v.  Snowdssn, 
18  Gratt.  100. 


Am.  V  Due  Process  of  Law.  646 

confiscation  without  process,155  and  where  the  assessment  is 
arbitrary  and  a  hearing  is  denied,  the  proceeding  is  void.156 
The  bankruptcy  act  of  July,  1898,  does  not,  by  failing  to  pro- 
vide for  notice  to  creditors  of  the  filing  of  a  petition  in  bank- 
ruptcy, violate  this  prohibition.157  Congress  has  no  power  to 
organize  a  board  of  revision  to  nullify  confirmed  titles.158 

The  phrase  embraces  only  existing  rules  and  not  ex  post  facto 
laws;159  rules  existing  at  the  time  of  the  vesting  of  rights.160 

A  seizure  and  confiscation  of  a  vessel  for  the  owner's  viola- 
tion of  the  law  is  valid,  as  the  seizure  is  due  notice;161  but  where 
the  vessel  is  not  the  property  of  the  offender,  a  forfeiture  with- 
out notice  to  the  owner  is  invalid.162 

It  is  discretionary  with  a  court  to  strike  an  attorney  from  the 
rolls,  and  such  a  proceeding  is  valid  without  a  hearing.163 
Property  may  be  taken  by  a  military  commander  in  war  in  case 
of  emergency,  but  the  case  must  be  urgent.161 

Life,  Liberty  or  Property. 


This  portion  of  the  Fifth  Amendment  merely  declares  the 
great  common-law  principle  as  to  fundamental  rights.165     The 

155  In  re  Budwigson,  3  Woods,  13,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8601;  Lavin  v. 
Emigrant  etc.  Bank,  18  Blatchf.  1.  1  Fed.  645;  Hodgson  v.  Millward,  3 
Grant,  406,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6568. 

156  San  Mateo  Co.  v.  Southern  Pacific  B.  B.  Co.,  8  Saw.  238,  13 
Fed.  145;  San  Francisco  etc.  E.  B.  Co.  v.  Dinwiddie,  8  Saw.  312,  13 
Fed.  789. 

157  Hmover  Nat.  Bank  v.  Moyses,  186  U.  S.  191,  22  S.  Ct.  857,  46 
L.  ed.  1113. 

158  Eeichart  v.  Felps,  6  Wall.  160,  18  L.  ed.  849. 

159  Hoke  v.  Henderson,  4  Dev.  15,  25  Am.  Dec.  677;  Taylor  v. 
Porter,  4  Hill,  140,  40  Am.  Dec.  274;  Wynehamer  v.  People,  13  N. 
Y.   393;  Norman  v.  Heist,  5  Watts    &  S.  171,  40  Am.  Dec.  493. 

160  Wilkinson  v.  Leland,  2  Pet.  658,  7  L.  ed.  542;  Osborn  v.  Nichol- 
son, 13  Wall.  6-62,  20  L.  ed.  689;  Taylor  v.  Porter,  4  Hill,  140,  40  Am. 
Dec.   274;   Wynehamer  v.  People,   13  N.  Y.   393. 

161  The  Ann,  5  Hughes,  292,  8  Fed.  923. 

162  The  J.  W.  French,  5  Hughes,  429,  13  Fed.  916. 

163  Ex  parte  Wall,  107  U.  S.  28S,  2  S.  Ct.  569,  27  L.  ed.  552. 

164  Mitchell  v.  Harmony,  13  How.  115,  14  L.  ed.  75;  Dow  v.  John- 
son, 100  TJ.  S.  169,  25  L.  ed.  632. 

165  Young  v.  McKenzie,  3  Ga.  42;  Parkham  v.  Justice,  9  Ga.  341; 
Ervine's  Appeal,  1<3  Pa.  St.  256,  55  Am.  Dec.  499. 


647  Due  Tkocess  of  Law.  Am.  V 

right  to  life  includes  the  right  to  the  body  in  all  its  complete- 
ness without  dismemberment.166  The  "liberty"  protected 
by  the  constitution  means  not  only  the  right  of  the  citizen  to 
be  free  from  the  mere  physical  restraint  of  his  person,  as  by  in- 
carceration, but  the  term  is  deemed  to  embrace  the  right  of  the 
citizen  to  be  free  in  the  enjoyment  of  all  his  faculties;  to  be 
free  to  use  them  in  all  lawful  ways;  to  live  and  work  where  he 
will;  to  earn  his  livelihood  by  any  lawful  calling;  to  pursue  any 
avocation,  and  for  that  purpose,  to  enter  into  all  contracts  which 
may  be  proper,  necessary  and  essential  to  his  carrying  out  to 
a  successful  conclusion  the  purposes  above  mentioned.167  JThe 
term  includes  also  the  right  to  acquire  property.168  The  pro- 
tection of  property  extends  to  the  acquisition,  possession  and  en- 
joyment of  it  in  any  way  consistent  with  the  equal  rights  of 
others  and  the  just  demands  of  the  state.169 

This  prohibition  was  intended  as  a  constitutional  safeguard  in 
the  trial  of  those  cases  for  which  it  was  stipulated  the  courts 
shall  remain  open,  and  those  wherein  a  party  shall  have  his 
remedy  by  due  course  of  law.170  Legislative  authority  cannot 
reach  life,  liberty  or  property  except  for  crime,  or  when  a  sacri- 
fice is  demanded  by  a  just  regard  for  the  public  welfare.171     ^ 

The  prohibition  extends  to  an  act  authorizing  the  arrest  of  a 
citizen  without  just  cause,172  but  not  to  the  killing  or  capture    \/ 

166  Bertholf  v.  O'Reilly,  74  N.  Y.  509,  30  Am.  Eep.   323. 

167  Allgeyer  v.  Louisiana,  165  U.  S.  589,  17  S.  Ct.  427,  41  L.  el. 
832;  Addyston  Pipe  etc.  Co.  v.  United  States,  175  U.  S.  288,  20  S.  Ct. 
96,  44  L.  ed.  136;  Braceville  Coal  Co.  v.  People,  147  111.  66,  37  Am.  St. 
Eep.  206,  35  N.  E.  62,  22  L.  E.  A.  340;  Harbison  v.  Knoxville  Iron 
Co.,  103  Tenn.  421,  76  Am.  St.  Eep.  682,  53  S.  W.  955,  56  L.  E. 
A.  316;  Eitchie  v.  People,  155  111.  98,  46  Am.  St.  Eep.  316,  40  N.  E. 
454,  29  L.  E,  A.  79. 

16S  Eitchie  v.  People,  155  111.  98,  46  Am.  St.  Eep.  316,  40  N.  E. 
454,  29  L.  E.  A.  79. 

169  Bertholf  v.  O'Reilly,  74  N.  Y.  509,  30  Am.  Eep.  323. 

170  Bonaparte  v.  Camden  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  Baldw.  220,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
1617;  Mason  v.  Kennebec  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  31  Me.  215. 

171  Atchison  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Baty,  6  Neb.  37;  Taylor  v.  Porter, 
4  Hill,  140,  40  Am.  Dec.  274;  Wilkinson  v.  Leland,  2  Pet.  65S,  7  L. 
ed.  542. 

172  Griffin  v.  Wilcox,  21  Ind.  370. 


Am  V  Due  Process  of  Law.  648 

of  a  rebel  in  battle.173  No  person  can  be  deprived  of  his  lib- 
erty on  the  ground  of  neglect  to  assert  his  rights,174  and  an 
act  of  Congress  which  makes  an  order  of  the  President  a  suffi- 
cient defense  for  any  act  personally  committed  is  void.175/ 

Due  process  of  law  as  applied  to  deprivation  of  liberty  re- 
quires that  the  accused  be  ordered  to  plead,  or,  in  a  proper  case, 
that  a  plea  of  not  guilty  be  entered  for  him,  before  Ms  trial  can 
rightfully  proceed,176  but  it  does  not  require  jury  trials  in  all 
cases.177  Where  a  contempt  has  been  committed  in  the  pres- 
ence of  the  court,  an  order  for  commitment  may  be  made  with- 
out notice  and  without  allowing  an  opportunity  to  be  heard,178 
and  a  statute  authorizing  imprisonment  for  contempt  of  orders 
in  proceedings  supplementary  to  execution  is  not  void  as  deny- 
ing due  process  of  law.179  A  proceeding  to  strike  an  attorney's 
name  from  the  roll  of  practitioners,  witbout  indictment  or  a 
regular  criminal  trial,  is  not  an  invasion  of  the  constitutional 
guaranty.180  The  deportation  of  aliens  is  not  a  punishment, 
nor  is  it  a  deprivation  of  liberty  without  due  process  of  law.181 
The  decisions  of  executive  officers  upon  the  facts  upon  which 
aliens  base  their  right  to  land  in  the  United  States  constitute 
due  process  of  law.182 

173  Norris  v.  Doniphan,  4  Met.  (Ky.)    3S5. 
1  174  Allen  v.  Sarah,  2  Harr.   434. 
J  175  Johnson  v.  Jones,  44  111.  142,  92  Am.  Dec.  159. 

176  Crain  v.  United  States,  162  TJ.  S.  6-45,  16  S.  Ct.  952,  40  L.  ed. 
1097. 

177  Attorney  General  v.  Joehim,  99  Mich.  358,  41  Am.  St.  Kep. 
606,  58  N.  W.  611,  23  L.  E.  A.  699;  Interstate  Commerce  Commission 
v.  Brimson,  154  U.  S.  489,  14  S.  Ct.  1125,  3S  L.  ed.  1047;  Tinsley  v. 
Anderson,  171  TJ.  S.  108,  18  S.  Ct.  805,  43  L.  ed.  91. 

178  In  re  Terry,  128  TJ.  S.  289,  9  S.  Ct.  77,  32  L.  ed.  405.  And  see 
Ex  parte  Strieker,  109  Fed.  145. 

179  Eikenberry  v.  Edwards,  67  Iowa,  619,  56  Am.  Rep.  360,  25  N. 
W.  832. 

180  Ex  parte  Wall,  107  TJ.  S.  238,  2  S.  Ct.  569,  27  L.  ed.  552. 

181  Fong  Yue  Ting  v.  United  States,  149  U.  S.  731,  13  S.  Ct.  1016, 
37  L.  ed.  905. 

182  Ekiu  v.  United  States,  142  U.  S.  660,  35  L.  ed.  1146;  Lee  Lung 
v.  Patterson,  186  U.  S.  175,  22  S.  Ct.  941,  46  L.  ed.  1108. 


649  Due  Process  of  Law.  Am.  V 

The  right  to  acquire,  hold  and  enjoy  property  is  protected  by 
this  clause/83  and  the  protection  extends  to  all  property, 
whether  real  or  personal.184  The  right  to  make  and  use  patented 
machines  is  property  which  Congress  is  prohibited  by  this  clause 
from  taking  from  the  owner.185  The  right  of  a  man  to  his 
own  labor,  and  of  others  to  employ  that  labor,  is  property  pro- 
tected by  the  constitution.186  So,  also,  'the  right  of  property 
involves,  as  one  of  its  essential  attributes,  the  right,  not  only 
to  contract,  but  also  to  terminate  contracts.187  To  constitute 
a  violation  of  the  prohibition  against  deprivation  of  property,  it 
must  appear  that  the  party  complaining  had  property  in  the 
thing  of  which  he  is  alleged  to  have  been  deprived,188  and  it 
must  also  appear  that  the  taking  complained  of  was  direct  and 
not  merely  the  consequential  injury  resulting  from  the  exercise 
of  a  lawful  power.183 

The  legislature  may  impose  just  and  reasonable  restraints 
upon  the  use  of  property.190     So  statutes  regulating  the  use,  or 

183  Bertholf  v.  O'Reilly,  74  N.  Y.  509,  30  Am.  Eep.  323;  Eitchie 
v.  People,  155  111.  98,  40  Am.  St.  Eep.  316,  40  N.  E.  454,  29  L.  E.  A. 
79;  Commonwealth  v.  Bacon,  13  Bush,  214. 

184  Ervine's  Appeal,  16  Pa.   St.   256,  55  Am.  Dec.   499. 

185  Bloomer  v.  McQuewan,  14  How.  553,  14  L.  ed.  532;  Cassidy  v. 
Hunt,  75  Fed.  1017. 

186  Braceville  Coal  Co.  v.  People,  147  111.  66,  37  Am.  St.  Eep.  205, 
35  N.  E.  62,  22  L.  E.  A.  340. 

187  Gillespie  v.  People,  188  111.  176,  80  Am.  St.  Eep.  176,  58  N.  E. 
1007,  52  L.  E.  A.  283;  Eitchie  v.  People,  155  111.  98,  40  Am.  St.  Eep. 
316,  40'  N.  E.  454,  29  L.  E.  A.  79. 

188  New  Orleans  v.  New  Orleans  Waterworks,  142  U.  S.  88,  12  S. 
Ct.  142,  35  L.  ed.  943;  Bier  v.  McGehee,  148  H.  S.  140,  13  S.  Ct.  581, 
37  L.  ed.  397;  Emblen  v.  Lincoln  Land  Co.,  184  TJ.  S.  660,  22  S.  Ct. 
583,  46  L.  ed.  736. 

189  Legal  Tender  Cases,  12  Wall.  551,  20  L.  ed.  287;  Meyer  v. 
Eichmond,  172  U.  S.  94,  19  S.  Ct.  106,  43  L.  ed.  374. 

190  Eailroad  Co.  v.  Eichmond,  96  U.  S.  529,  24  L.  ed.  734;  Eailroad 
Commission  Cases,  116  U.  S.  335,  29  L.  ed.  636;  New  York  etc.  E.  E. 
Co.'s  Appeal,  62  Conn.  538,  26  Atl.  126;  Hockett  v.  State,  105  Ind. 
259,  55  Am.  Eep.  207,  5  N.  E.  183;  South  Covington  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v. 
Berry,  93  Ky.  49,  40  Am.  St.  Eep.  165,  18  S.  W.  1027,  15  L.  E,  A. 
604;  Commonwealth  v.  Alger,  7  Cush.  84;  State  v.  Yopp,  97  N.  C. 
477,  2  Am.  St.  Eep.  305,  2  S.  E.  458. 


Am.  V  Due  Process  of  Law.  650 

even  the  price  of  the  use,  of  private  property  do  not  necessarily 
deprive  the  owner  of  his  property  without  due  process  of  law.191 

The  amendment  does  not  strip  the  government  of  power  to  en- 
act regulations  for  the  protection  of  the  public  health  and 
safety,192  and  legislation  looking  to  this  end  is  not  open  to  ob- 
jection if  it  be  general  in  its  operation  on  the  subjects  to  which 
it  relates  and  is  enforceable  in  the  usual  modes  by  process  or 
proceedings  applicable  to  the  nature  of  the  case.193 

In  judging  what  is  due  process  of  law  in  the  taking  of  prop- 
erty regard  is  to  be  had  to  the  cause  and  the  object  of  the  tak- 
ing,194 and  if  suitable  to  the  particular  case  it  will  be  deemed 
due  process;  otherwise  if  arbitrary,  oppressive  or  unjust.105 
The  legislature  cannot  take  property  from  one  individual  and 
give  it  to  another.196 

The  constitutional  guaranty  carries  with  it  all  that  effectuates 
and  renders  complete  the  unrestrained  enjoyment  of  that  guar- 
anty,197 and  it  is  expected  that  the  courts  will  enforce  it  even 
against  persons  assuming  to  act  under  the  authority  of  the  gov- 
ernment.198 

Eminent  Domain. 


The  right  of  eminent  domain  is  paramount  over  all  private 
rights  vested  under  the  government  which,  by  necessary  impli- 
cation, are  held  in  subordination  to  this  power  and  must  yield 

191  Munn  v.  Illinois,  94  U.  S.  125,  24  L.  ed.  77. 

192  Compagnie  Francaise  etc.  v.  Louisiana  State  Board,  186  TL  S. 
393,  22  S.  Ct.  811,  46  L.  ed.  1209. 

193  Dent  v.  West  Virginia,  129  U.  S.  124,  9  S.  Ct.  231,  32  L.  ed. 
623. 

194  Wulzen  v.  Board  of  Supervisors,  101  Cal.  15,  40  Am.  St.  Eep. 
17,  35  Pac.  353. 

195  Lent  v.  Tillson,  140  U.  S.  327,  11  S.  Ct.  825,  35  L.  ed.  412; 
Origet  v.  Hedden,  155  U.  S.  238,  15  S.  Ct.  96,  39  L.  ed.  130;  Scott 
v.  Toledo,  36  Fed.  394;  Meyers  v.  Shields,  61  Fed.  718;  Fort  Smith 
v.  Dodson,  46  Ark.  300,  55  Am.  Eep.  592;  Brown  v.  Denver,  7  Colo. 
312,  3  Pac.  459. 

196  Turner  v.  Althaus,  6   Neb.   54. 

197  State  v.  Julow,  129  Mo.  163,  50  Am.  St.  Eep.  443,  31  S.  W.  781, 
29  L.  E.  A.  257. 

198  United  States  v.  Lee,  106  U.  S.  196,  1  S.  Ct.  240,  27  L.  ed.  17L 


651  Due  Process  of  Law.  Am.  V 

in  every  instance  to  its  proper  exercise.199  It  is  the  power  to 
take  property  for  public  use.200  The  right  is  inseparable  from 
sovereignty,  unless  denied  by  fundamental  law.201  Every  citi- 
zen holds  his  property  upon  the  implied  condition  that  it  will 
be  surrendered  to  the  government  when  public  necessity  de- 
mands it,202  and  necessity  alone  is  the  foundation  of  the  power 
to  take.203 

Where  the  use  is  public,  the  necessity  or  expediency  of  appro- 
priating any  particular  property  is  within  the  discretion  of  Con- 
gress.204 Where  there  is  an  apparent  public  interest  to  be  sub- 
served, the  legislature,  or  person  or  body  it  may  designate,  is 
the  proper  judge  of  the  necessity.205  Under  the  police  power 
persons  and  property  are  subject  to  all  kinds  of  restrictions  and 
burdens  to  secure  the  general  comfort,  health  and  prosperity,200 
and  the  power  of  eminent  domain  is  likewise  unimpaired  by  this 

199  West  Eiver  Bridge  Co.  v.  Dix,  6  How.  532,  12  L.  ed.  535. 

200  Boom  Company  v.  Patterson,  98  U.  S.  406,  25  L.  ed.  206;  Sweet 
v.  Bechel,  159  U.  S.  399,  16  S.  Ct.  43,  40  L.  ed.  188. 

201  Kohl  v.  United  States,  91  U.  S.  371,  23  L.  ed.  449;  Searl  v. 
School  Dist.  Lake  Co.,  133  U.  S.  562,  10  S.  Ct.  374,  -33  L.  ed.  740; 
Adirondack  Ry.  Co.  v.  New  York,  176  U.  S.  349,  20  S.  Ct.  460,  44  L. 
ed.  492. 

202  Little  Eock  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Woodruff,  49  Ark.  381,  4  Am.  St. 
Eep.  51,  5  S.  W.  792;  Carthage  v.  Frederick,  122  N.  Y.  268,  19  Am. 
St.  Eep.  490,  29  N.  E.  480,  10  L.  E.  A.  178. 

203  Kohl  v.  United  States,  91  U.  S.  371,  23  L.  ed.  449;  California 
v.  Central  Pac.  E.  E.  Co.,  127  U.  S.  40,  8  S.  Ct.  1073,  32  L.  ed.  150; 
Searl  v.  School  Dist.  Lake  Co.,  133  U.  S.  562,  10  S.  Ct.  374,  33  L. 
ed.  740. 

204  Boom  Company  v.  Patterson,  98  U.  S.  406,  25  L.  ed.  206;  United 
States  v.  Gettysburg  etc.  Ey.  Co.,  160  U.  S.  685,  16  S.  Ct.  427,  40  L. 
ed.  576;  Shoemaker  v.  United  States,  147  U.  S.  298,  13  S.  Ct.  691, 
37  L.  ed.  170;  Illinois  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  141  111.  602,  30  N. 
E.  1047,  17  L.  E.  A.  530;  Lynch  v.  Forbes,  161  Mass.  309,  42  Am.  St. 
Eep.  404,  37  N.  E.  437;  Avery  v.  Fox,  1  Abb.  U.  S.  246,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
674;  Swan  v.  Williams,  2  Mich.  427. 

205  Newcomb  v.  Smith,  1  Chand.  71. 

206  Slaughter-house  Cases,  16  Wall.  36,  21  L.  ed.  394;  Munn  v. 
Illinois,  94  U.  S.  123,  24  L.  ed.  77;  Thorpe  v.  Eutland  etc.  E.  E.  Co., 
27  Vt.  140,  62  Am.  Dec.  625;  Bertholf  v.  O'Reilly,  74  N.  Y.  509,  30 
Am.  Rep.  323. 


Am.  V  Due  Process  of  Law.  652 

provision.207     The  terms  of  the  constitution  are  declaratory  and 
not  restrictive.208 

The  manner  of  exercising  the  right  of  eminent  domain  is,  in 
the  absence  of  contrary  constitutional  provision,  a  matter  of  leg- 
islative discretion,209  and  where  power  is  given  to  an  executive 
officer  to  obtain  land  by  condemnation  he  is  impliedly  given 
power  to  do  so  by  any  competent  means.-10  Governments  more 
frequently  effect  these  objects  through  the  aid  of  corporations 
than  by  their  immediate  agents.21  x  The  power  to  take  private 
property  is  limited  to  public  purposes.212  When  the  legislature 
has  declared  a  use  to  be  public  its  judgment  will,  in  general, 
be  respected  by  the  courts;213  but  such  declaration  is  not  final 
as  to  the  character  of  the  use,  and  the  question  is  ultimately 
judicial.214 

Public  use  is  a  use  concerning  the  whole  community  as  dis- 
tinguished from  particular  individuals,215  but  it  is  not  essen- 
tial that  any  considerable  portion  of  the  community  should  di- 
rectly enjoy  or  participate  in  an  improvement  in  order  to  render 

207  West  Kiver  Bridge  Co.  v.  Dix,  6  How.  539,  12  L.  ed.  535;  Dyer 
v.  Tuscaloosa  Br.  Co.,  2  Port.  296,  27  Am.  Dec.  655. 

208  Young  v.  McKenzie,  3  Ga.  31. 

209  Secombe  v.  Railroad  Co.,  23  Wall.  118,  23  L.  ed.  67;  Chappell 
v.  United  States,  81  Fed.  764. 

210  Kohl  v.  United  Sates,  91  U.  S.  375,  23  L.  ed.  449. 

211  Chesapeake  &  Ohio  Co.  v.  Key,  3  Cr.  C.  C.  599,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
2649;  Baltimore  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Van  Ness,  4  Cr.  C.  C.  595,  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  830;  Swan  v.  Williams,  2  Mich.  427. 

212  United  States  v.  Chicago,  7  How.  195,  12  L.  ed.  660;  Commis- 
sioners v.  Lucas,  93  U.  S.  114,  23  L.  ed.  822;  Kaukauna  Water  Co. 
v.  Green  Bay  etc.  Canal  Co.,  142  U.  S.  273,  12  S.  Ct.  173,  35  L. 
ed.  1004;  United  States  v.  Ames,  1  Wood.  &  M.  76. 

213  United  States  v.  Gettysburg  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  160  U.  S.  685,  16  S. 
Ct.  427,  40  L.  ed.  576;  Chicago  etc.  R.  R.  v.  Morehouse,  112  Wis.  1, 
88  Am.  St.  Rep.  918,  87  N.  W.  849,  56  L.  R.  A.  240. 

214  Shoemaker  v.  United  States,  147  U.  S.  298,  13  S.  Ct.  691,  37 
L.  ed.  170;  Fallbrook  Irr.  Dist.  v.  Bradley,  164  U.  S.  160,  17  S.  Ct. 
56,  41  L.  ed.  369;  Fanning  v.  Gilliland,  37  Or.  369,  82  Am.  St.  Rep. 
758,  61  Pac.  636. 

215  Gilmer  v.  Lime  Point,  18  Cal.  229;  Heyneman  v.  Blake,  19  CaL 
579. 


653  Due  Process  of  Law.  Am.  V 

the  use  public,216  nor  is  it  necessary  that  the  use  be  without 
charge  to  anyone.217 

The  legislature  cannot  take  private  property  for  purely  pri- 
vate uses.218  So  a  state  cannot  appropriate  private  property 
for  the  sole  purpose  of  leasing  it  to  a  manufacturing  concern,219 
and  a  tax  law  in  aid  of  a  private  enterprise  or  business  is  void.220 
The  taking  of  property  for  the  construction  of  a  railroad  is  a 
public  necessity,221  but  a  railroad  company  cannot  condemn  a 
site  for  the  erection  of  manufactories  of  railroad  cars.222  On 
the  other  hand,  a  statute  authorizing  the  taking  of  land  for 
millsites  and  dams  has  been  upheld  as  valid.223  The  improve- 
ment of  the  navigation  of  a  river  is  a  public  purpose  and  the 
sequestration  of  land  therefor  is  a  proper  exercise  of  the  power 
of  eminent  domain.224  To  irrigate  and  thus  make  possible  the 
cultivation  of  otherwise  worthless  land  is  a  public  purpose  for 
which  land  may  be  condemned.225  Land  taken  for  a  public 
park  is  taken  for  a  public  use,2-26  and  the  United  States  had 

216  Fallbrook  Irr.  Dist.  v.  Bradley,  164  U.  S.  162,  17  S.  Ct.  56,  41 
L.  ed.  369. 

217  Long  Island  etc.  Supply  Co.  v.  Brooklyn,  166  U.  S.  694,  17  S. 
Ct.  718,  41  L.  ed.  1165. 

?is  Kaukauna  Water  etc.  Co.  v.  Green  Bay  etc.  Canal  Co.,  142 
U.  S.  273,  12  S.  Ct.  173,  35  L.  ed.  1004;  Consolidated  Chan.  Co.  v. 
Central  Pacific  E.  E.  Co.,  51  Cal.  269;  Newcomb  v.  Smith,  1  Chand. 
71. 

219  Kaukauna  Water  etc.  Co.  v.  Green  Bay  etc.  Canal  Co.,  142  U. 
S.  273,  12  S.  Ct.  173,  35  L.  ed.  1004. 

220  Pumpelly  v.  Green  Bay  Co.,  13  Wall.  177,  20  L.  ed.  557;  Bertholf 
v.  O'Eeilly,  74  N.  Y.  509,  30  Am.  Sep.  323;  Weisner  v.  Village  of 
Douglass,  64  N.  T.  92,  21  Am.  Eep.  586. 

221  Secombe  v.  Eailroad,  23  Wall.  118,  23  L.  ed.  67;  Huling  v. 
Kaw  Valley  Ey.  Co.,  130  TJ.  S.  564,  9  S.  Ct.  605,  32  L.  ed.  1045; 
Cherokee  Nation  v.  Southern  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  39  Fed.  914;  Central 
Ey.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania  Ey.  Co.,  31  N.  J.  Eq.  492. 

222  Eldridge  v.  Smith,  34  Vt.  484. 

223  Newcomb  v.  Smith,  1  Chand.  71. 

224  Kaukauna  Water  Co.  v.  Green  Bay  Canal  Co.,  142  TJ.  S.  272, 
12  S.  Ct.  173,  35  L.  ed.  1004. 

225  Fallbrook  Irr.  Dist.  v.  Bradley,  164  TJ.  S.  161,  17  S.  Ct.  56,  41 
L.  ed.  369. 

226  Shoemaker  v.  United  States,  147  TJ.  S.  297,  13  S.  Ct.  361;  37 


Am.  V  Due  Process  of  Law.  654 

power  to  condemn  land  for  the  surveying,  locating,  marking  and 
preserving  the  lines  of  battle  at  Gettysburg.-27  In  all  cases  the 
question  whether  the  use  is  public  depends  upon  the  object 
aimed  at.228 

While  a  remote  and  consequential  injury  to  property  is  not 
a  "taking"  requiring  compensation,229  yet  where  real  estate  is 
actually  invaded  by  superinduced  additions  of  water,  earth, 
sand,  or  other  material,  or  by  having  any  artificial  structure 
placed  upon  it  so  as  to  destroy  or  effectually  impair  its  useful- 
ness, compensation  must  be  made.230  A  serious  interruption 
to  the  common  and  necessary  use  of  property  is  equivalent  to 
a  faking.231  So  the  government  is  liable  for  the  destruction 
of  a  well  on  land  adjacent  to  that  taken  for  public  works,232 
and  the  construction  of  a  dam  which  caused  water  to  overflow 
land  and  render  it  unfit  for  cultivation  constitutes  a  taking  of 
the  land.233  So,  also  as  to  the  diversion  of  a  stream  causing  a 
deposit  of  earth  on  riparian  land  and  erosion  of  the  bank,234 

L.  ed.  170;  Kansas  City  v.  Ward,  134  Mo.  177,  35  S.  W.  601;  Kansas 
City  v.  Bacon,  147  Mo.  273,  48  S.  W.  863;  People  v.  Adirondack  Ey., 
160  N.  Y.  248,  54  N.  E.  696. 

2  27  United  States  v.  Gettysburg  etc.  Ey.  Co.,  160  U.  S.  679,  16  S. 
Ct.  427,  40  L.  ed.  576. 

228  Tuthill,  Matter  of,  163  N.  T.  133,  79  Am.  St.  Eep.  574,  57  N. 
E.  303,  49  L.  E.  A.  781. 

229  United  States  v.  Alexander,  148  U.  S.  187,  13  S.  Ct.  529,  37 
L.  ed.  415. 

230  Pun-pelly  v.  Green  Bay  Co.,  13  Wall.  178,  20  L.  ed.  557;  United 
States  v.  Lynah,  188  U.  S.  445,  23  S.  Ct.  349,  47  L.  ed.  539;  United 
States  v.  Williams,  188  U.  S.  485,  23  S.  Ct.  363,  47  L.  ed.  554;  Wood- 
ruff v.  North  Bloomfield  G.  M.  Co.,  9  Saw.  508,  18  Fed.  783;  Hollings- 
worth  Parish  v.  Tensas,  4  Woods,  288,  17  Fed.  115;  Payne  v.  Kansas 
etc.  E.  E.,  46  Fed.  556;  King  v.  United  States,  59  Fed.  12;  Central 
Trust  Co.  v.  Hennen,  90  Fed.  597;  Matter  of  Jacobs,  98  N.  Y.  98,  50 
Am.  Eep.  636. 

231  United  States  v.  Alexander,  14S  U.  S.  187,  13  S.  Ct.  529,  37 
L.  ed.  415. 

232  United  States  v.  Truesdell,  148  U.  S.  196,  13  S.  Ct.  532,  37  L. 
ed.  419. 

233  King  v.  United  States,  59  Fed.  12;  Head  v.  Amoskeag  Mfg. 
Co.,  113  U.  S.  26,  5  S.  Ct.  448,  28  L.  ed.  889. 

234  Weaver  v.  Mississippi  etc.  Co.,  28  Minn.  539. 


655  Due  Process  of  Law.  Am.  V 

and  the  building  of  a  dyke  in  a  stream,  thereby  diverting  the 
stream  from  land  which  derived  its  value  from  its  water  front- 
age.235 Any  direct  damage  caused  to  adjacent  property  by  the 
construction  of  a  railroad  is  a  taking  within  the  meaning  of 
this  clause.236 

A  city  is  liable  to  adjacent  property  owners  for  such  special 
damasres  as  they  sustain  above  the  common  injury  resulting  from 
a  public  improvement.237  The  damage  caused  by  the  change  of 
a  street  grade  which  backed  water  up  on  the  abutting  land  ren- 
ders a  city  liable.238  A  city  is  liable  for  compensatory  dam- 
ages where  the  erection  of  an  embankment  in  front  of  a  lot  in 
grading  a  street  destroys  the  use  of  the  lot,239  and  where  a  via- 
duct is  erected  which  cuts  off  access  to  a  street  except  by  a  stair- 
way, the  owner  of  the  land  is  entitled  to  compensation,240  and 
a  county  is  liable  to  a  riparian  owner  for  damages  caused  to  land 
by  the  erection  of  a  bridge  which  caused  the  washing  away  of 
earth.241  A  municipality,  in  constructing  a  sewer,  cannot  suf- 
fer sewage  to  be  discharged  on  private  land  because  of  the  in- 
completeness of  the  sewer,  without  making  compensation.242 
The  cutting  of  a  sewer  which  causes  the  flooding  of  property 
renders  a  city  liable  to  the  owner.243 

235  Myers  v.  St.  Louis,  8  Mo.  App.  275. 

236  Pennsylvania  E.  E,  Co.  v.  Miller,  132  IT.  S.  83,  10  S.  Ct.  37, 
33  L.  ed.  267;  Payne  v.  Kansas  etc  E.  E.  Co.,  46  Fed.  556;  Seaton  v. 
Norfolk  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  Ill  N.  C.  284,  16  S.  E.  183;  Gainesville  etc. 
Ey.  Co.  v.  Hall,  78  Tex.  169,  22  Am.  St.  Eep.  42,  14  S.  W.  259,  9  L.  E. 
A.  298;  Sheehy  v.  Kansas  City  Ey.  Co.,  94  Mo.  574,  4  Am.  St.  Eep. 
396,  7  S.  W.  579. 

237  Eeardon  v.  San  Francisco,  66  Cal.  492,  56  Am.  Eep.  109,  6  Pac. 
317;  Eobert  v.  Sadler,  104  N.  Y.  232,  58  Am.  Eep.  499,  10  N.  E.  429. 

238  Kemper  v.  Louisville,  14  Bush,  92;  Coniff  v.  San  Francisco,  67 
Cal.  47,  7  Pac.  44;  Inman  v.  Tripp,  11  E.  I.  525,  23  Am.  Eep.  523.     But 

239  Vanderlip  v.  Grand  Eapids,  73  Mich.  535,  16  Am.  St.  Eep.  607, 
Pac.  390,  62  Pac.  209,  50  L.  E.  A.  389. 

239  Vanderlip  v.  Grand  Eapids,  73  Mich.  535,  16  Am.  St.  Eep.  60, 
41  N.  W.  6S2,  3  L.  E.  A.  247. 

240  Bigney  v.  Chicago,  102  111.   72. 

241  Tyler  v.  Tehama  County,  109   Cal.  623,  42  Pac.   242. 

242  Chattanooga  v.  Dowling,  101  Tenn.  345,  47  S.  W.  700. 

243  Ashley  v.  Port  Huron,  35  Mich.  301,  24  Am.  Eep.  536. 


Am.  V  Due  Process  of  Law.  656 

This  guarantee  is  intended  for  the  protection  of  a  right  rather 
than  for  the  redress  of  a  wrong,-44  and  the  government  cannot, 
hy  abstaining  from  the  absolute  conversion  of  property,  inflict 
irreparable  and  permanent  injury  on  it,  without  making  com- 
pensation, on  a  plea  that  it  is  not  "taken"  for  public  use.245 
But  extraordinary  and  unforeseen  occasions  arise  in  cases  of 
impending  danger  when  private  property  may  be  appropriated, 
and  if  the  necessity  be  extreme  and  imperative  this  prohibition 
does  not  apply,246  as  in  case  of  military  necessity.247  The  right 
to  raze  houses  to  prevent  the  spread  of  a  conflagration  rests  upon 
public  necessity,  and  no  one  is  bound  to  reimburse  the  owner 
for  his  loss.248  If  movable  property  is  taken  in  good  faith  by 
a  military  commander,  the  title  vests  in  the  government,  al- 
though it  subsequently  appears  that  the  taking  was  not  abso- 
lutely necessary;249  the  courts  cannot  interfere  with  such 
acts.250  The  discharge  of  city  sewage  into  a  stream  which  dur- 
ing an  unusual  flood  overflows  its  banks  and  carries  sewage  out 
on  the  land  of  a  riparian  owner,  is  not  such  a  taking  of  prop- 
erty as  necessitates  compensation;251  the  injury  in  such  a  case 
is  too  remote.252  Every  attempt  of  a  public  officer  to  take  pri- 
vate property  for  a  public  use,  unless  justified  by  some  pressing 

244  Stearns  v.  Barre,  73  Vt.  281,  87  Am.  St.  Eep.  721,  50  Atl.  1086, 
58  L.  E.  A.  240. 

245  Pumpelly  v.  Green  Bay  Co.,  13  Wall.  178,  20  L.  ed.  557;  John- 
son's Case,  8  Ct.  of  CI.  S43. 

246  United  States  v.  Bussell,  13  Wall.  623,  20  L.  ed.  474;  Taylor 
v.  Bailroad  Co.,  6  Cold.  646. 

247  Dow  v.  Johnson,  100  TJ.  S.  167,  25  L.  ed.  632;  Underbill  v. 
Hernandez,  168  U.  S.  253,  18  S.  Ct.  84,  42  L.  ed.  456;  Mitchell  v.  Har- 
mony, 13  How.  115,  14  L.  ed.  75;  Clark  v.  Mitchell,  64  Mo.  564. 

248  Balli  v.  Troop,  157  U.  S.  405,  15  S.  Ct.  457,  39  L.  ed.  742;  Bishop 
v.  City  of  Macon,  7  Ga.  200,  1  Am.  Dec.  400. 

249  Taylor  v.  Bailroad  Co.,  6  Cold.  646;  Williams  v.  Wickerman,  44 
Mo.  484. 

250  Newcomb  v.  Smith,  1  Chand.  71. 

251  Valparaiso  v.  Hagen,  153  Ind.  337,  74  Am.  St.  Eep.  305,  51  N. 
E.  1062,  48  L.  E.  A.  707. 

252  United  States  v.  Alexander,  148  U.  S.  187,  13  S.  Ct.  529,  37  L. 
ed.  415. 


657  Due  Process  of  Law.  Am.  V 

necessity,  is  a  simple  trespass,  for  which  the  government  is  not 
responsible.253 

Under  this  power  all  property,  whether  private  or  corporate, 
may  be  taken,  on  a  public  necessity,  and  on  making  compensa- 
tion.254 A  franchise  is  property  subject  to  be  taken  by  eminent 
domain  just  as  any  other  property.255  In  all  such  cases  the 
power  acts  on  the  property  and  not  on  the  contract,256  and  the 
taking  of  a  franchise  as  property  does  not  terminate  it  as  a 
contract  but  merely  appropriates  the  contract  to  public  use  ;25T 
it  not  only  does  not  impair  the  obligation  of  tlje  contract  but 
recognizes  it  to  the  fullest  extent.-58  The  legislature  may  au- 
thorize the  construction  of  one  railway  across  another,259  and 
land  devoted  to  one  public  use  may  be  condemned  for  another,20 J 
and  a  bridge  held  by  a  corporation  under  a  state  charter  may 
be  taken  as  a  part  of  a  public  road.261  So  also  a  city  may  take 
and  operate  a  water  supply  system  owned  under  a  contract 

253  PitcheT  v.  United  States,  1  Nott    &  H.  7. 

254  Planters'  Bank  v.  Sharp,  6  How.  330,  12  L.  ed.  447;  Terra 
Haute  v.  E.  &  T.  H.  E.  E.  Co.,  149  Ind.  180,  46  N.  E.  78,  37  L.  E. 
A.  189. 

255  Eichmond  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Louisiana  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  13  How. 
S3,  14  L.  ed.  55;  Greenwood  v.  Freight  Co.,  105  U.  S.  22,  26  L.  ed. 
961;  Long  Island  etc.  Co.  v.  Brooklyn,  166  U.  S.  693,  17  S.  Ct.  721, 
41  L.  ed.  1165;  Turnpike  Eoad  v.  Eailroad  Co.,  81  Md.  256,  31  Atl. 
855;  Central  Bridge  Corp.  v.  Lowell,  4  Gray,  481;  Scranton  Gas  Co. 
v.  Northern  C.  &  I.  Co.,  192  Pa.  St.  80,  73  Am.  St.  Eep.  798,  43  Atl. 
470;  Appeal  of  Pittsburgh  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  122  Pa.  St.  511,  9  Am.  St. 
Eep.  128,  6  Atl.  564. 

2.56  West  Eiver  Bridge  Co.  v.  Dix,  6  How.  536,  12  L.  ed.  535. 

257  Long  Island  Water  etc.  Co.  v.  Brooklyn,  166  U.  S.  691,  17 
S.  Ct.  71S,  41  L.  ed.  1165. 

25S  West  EiveT  Bridge  Co.  v.  Dix,  6  How.  507,  12  L.  ed.  535; 
Greenwood  v.  Freight  Co.,  105  U.  S.  13,  26  L.  ed.  961;  Enfield  Toll 
Bridge  Co.  v.  Hartford  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  17  Conn.  454,  44  Am.  Dec. 
556;  Haverill  Bridge  Props,  v.  County  Commissioners,  103  Mass.  120, 
4  Am.  Eep.  518. 

259  Eichmond  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Louisiana  etc.  E.  E.,  13  How.  83,  14 
L.  ed.  55. 

260  United  States  v.  Gettysburg  Electric  Ey.  Co.,  160  U.  S.  685, 
16  S.  Ct.  427,  40  L.  ed.  576. 

261  West  Eiver  Bridge  Co.  v.  Dix,  6  How.  529,  12  L.  ed.  535. 

Notes  on  Constitution — 42 


Am.  V  Due  Process  of  Law.  658 

with  the  city.261a     Property  in  patents  may  be  taken  in  the 
exercise  of  this  power.263 

The  United  States  may  condemn  land  for  governmental  pur- 
poses free  from  any  regulation  or  control  by  the  states.203  But 
the  United  States  cannot  thereby  interfere  with  the  exercise  by 
the  states  of  their  own  sovereign  right  of  eminent  domain.201 
It  is  immaterial  that  the  land  desired  is  within  the  territory 
of  a  state,205  or  within  territory  occupied  by  an  Indian  tribe,200 
and  the  concurrence  of  the  state  is  not  necessary.207  It  is 
immaterial  whether  the  fee  is  in  the  state  or  in  private  per- 
sons.208 The  power  to  condemn  land  for  federal  purposes  is 
exclusively  in  the  federal  government  and  cannot  be  exercised 
by  a  state  in  its  behalf.269 

Compensation  for  Property  Taken. 


The  right  to  take  private  property  for  public  use  reaches 
back  of  all  constitutional  provisions,  and  the  right  to  compen- 
sation for  property  so  taken  is  incident  to  the  exercise  of  that 
power ;  they  exist  as  parts  of  one  principle.270     A  condition  pre- 

261  a  Long  Lland  etc.  Supply  Co.  v.  Brooklyn,  166  U.  S.  689,  17 
S.  Ct.  718,  41  L.  ed.  1165. 

262  Campbell  v.  James,  17  Blatchf.  42,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2361. 

263  Kohl  v.  United  States,  91  U.  S.  367,  23  L.  ed.  449;  Troinbley  v. 
Humphrey,  23  Mich.  471;  Darlington  v.  United  States,  82  Pa.  St. 
382,  22  Am.  Eep.  766. 

264  Boom  Company  v.  Patterson,  98  U.  S.  406,  25  L.  ed.  206. 
2.65  United  States  v.  Fox,  94  U.  S.  320,  24  L.  ed.  192;  Luxton  v. 

North  River  Bridge  Co.,  153  U.  S.  529,  14  S.  Ct.  891,  38  L.  ed.  808. 

266  Cherokee  Nation  v.  Kansas  R.  R.  Co.,  135  U.  S.  656,  10  S.  Ct. 
965,  34  L.  ed.  295. 

267  Van  Brocklin  v.  Tennessee,  117  U.  S.  154,  6  S.  Ct.  670,  29 
L.  ed.  845;  Luxton  v.  North  River  Bridge  Co.,  153  U.  S.  529,  14  S. 
Ct.  891,  38  L.  ed.  808. 

268  Monongahela  Nav.  Co.  v.  United  States,  148  U.  S.  342,  13  3. 
Ct.  622,  37  L.  ed.  463. 

269  Kohl  v.  United  States,  91  U.  S.  373,  23  L.  ed.  449;  Darlington 
v.  United  States,  82  Pa.  St.  382,  22  Am.  Rep.  766.  But  see  Gilmer  v. 
Lime  Poin^/18  Cal.  229;  Burt  v.  Merchants'  Ins.  Co.,  106  Mass.  356, 
8  Am.  Rep?  339. 

270  Pumpelly  v.  Green  Bay  Co.,  13  Wall.  182,  24  L.  ed.  557;  Monon- 
gahela Nav.  Co.  v.  United  States,  14S  U.  S.  324,  13  S.  Ct.  622,  37 


G59  Due  Process  of  Law.  Am.  V 

cedent  to  the  exercise  of  the  power  of  eminent  domain  is  pro- 
vision for  reasonable  compensation  to  the  owner.271  The  con- 
stitution nowhere  recognizes  necessity  as  authority  for  taking 
private  property  for  public  use  without  compensation,272  and 
the  Fifth  Amendment  expressly  places  the  United  States  under 
an  obligation  to  compensate  the  owner  for  any  property  or 
property  right  taken  for  public  use,273  regardless  of  any  bene- 
fit the  owner  may  receive  in  common  with  the  public.274  Ac- 
cordingly, whenever  private  property  is  taken  an  implied  ob- 
ligation to  make  compensation  to  the  owner  at  once  arises.273 

The  making  of  compensation  must  be  as  absolutely  certain 
as  that  the  property  is  taken.276  There  must  be  a  condemna- 
tion or  an  agreement  consummated.277 

Every  person  is  entitled  to  notice  and  an  opportunity  to  be 
heard  in  a  proceeding  to  condemn  his  property  for  public  use;278 
but  if  Congress  provides  a  special  tribunal  for  hearings  in 
such  cases  no  other  can  be  resorted  to.279     Congress  may  desig- 

L.  ed.  463;  Baumann  v.  Boss,  167  U.  S.  574,  17  S.  Ct.  966,  42  L.  eJ. 
270. 

271  Sweet  v.  Eechel,  159  IT.  S.  399,  16  S.  Ct.  43,  40  L.  ed.  183; 
Barron  v.  Mayor  of  Baltimore,  7  Pet.  243,  8  L.  ed.  672;  Danville 
etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Commonwealth,  73  Pa.  St.  29;  Young  v.  McKenzie, 
3  Ga.  31;  United  States  v.  Dunnington,  146  U.  S.  344,  13  S.  Ct.  79, 
36  L.  ed.  996. 

272  Norris  v.  Doniphan,  4  Met.  (Ky.)  385;  Corbin  v.  Marsh,  2 
Duvall,  193. 

273  Great  Falls  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Attorney  General,  124  U.  S.  597,  8  S.  J 
Ct.  631,  31  L.  ed.  527;  Monongahela  Nav.  Co.  v.  United  States,  148 

U.  S.  326,  13  S.  Ct.  622,  37  L.  ed.  463;  Eussell's  Case,  7  Ct.  of  CI.  227. 

274  Monongahela  Nav.  Co.  v.  United  States,  148  U.  S.  326,  13  S. 
Ct.  622,  37  L.  ed.  463;  People  v.  Mayor  of  Brooklyn,  6  Barb.  309; 
Jacob  v.  Louisville,  9  Dana,  114,  33  Am.  Dec.  533. 

275  United  States  v.  Great  Falls  Mfg.  Co.,  112  U.  S.  654,  5  S.  Ct. 
306,  28  L.  ed.  846;  Hirsch's  Case,  15  Ct.  of  CI.  385. 

276  Young  v.  Harrison,  6  Ga.  130;  Carr  v.  Georgia  etc.  E.  E.  Co., 
1  Kelly,  524;  Miller  v.  Craig,  3  Stock.  106;  Buffalo  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v. 
Ferris,  26  Tex.  588;  Bloodgood  v.  Mohawk  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  18  Wend. 
9,  31  Am.  Dec.  313. 

277  Whitman  v.  Boston  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  85  Mass.  138. 

278  Burusi  v.  Multnomah  By.  Co.,  8  Saw.  543,  15  Fed.  177;  Wilburn 
v.  McCalley,  63  Ala.  436;  Zeigler  v.  S.  N.  E.  E.  Co.,  58  Ala.  594. 

279  Meade  v.  United  States,  2  Ct.  of  CI.  224. 


Am.  V  Due  Process  of  Law.  660 

nate  directly  or  authorize  the  state  to  designate  a  tribunal  to 
determine  the  compensation  to  be  awarded,280  but  where  no 
court  is  designated  a  common-law  action  will  lie  in  the  appro- 
priate district  court.281  A  statute  makes  adequate  provision 
for  compensation  when  it  directs  the  ascertainment  of  damages 
without  delay  in  a  legal  mode,  and  gives  the  owner  a  right  to 
a  judgment  collectible  by  legal  process.282  The  provision  for 
compensation  does  not  require  actual  payment  in  advance  of 
occupancy,  if  reasonably  secured,  but  title  does  not  pass  until 
payment.2S3  Accordingly,  the  government  discharges  its  full 
duty  to  the  owner  by  depositing  the  amount  of  the  award 
in  court.284  A  judgment  unpaid  and  unsecured  is  not  com- 
pensation.285 

A  condemnation  proceeding  is  a  suit  at  law,286  but  the  pro- 
ceedings may  be  had  before  the  court  or  commissioners,  as  desig- 
nated by  the  legislature.287  A  statute  allowing  separate  trials 
to  owners  of  each  parcel  condemned  does  not  contemplate  a 
separate  trial  for  each  owner  of  an  interest  in  each  parcel.288 

The  measure  of  compensation  is  the  market  value  of  land, 
with  reference  to  its  availability  for  present  and  future  valuable 
uses.289     Just  compensation  means  just  in  regard  to  the  public 

280  United  States  v.  Jones,  109  TJ.  S.  515,  3  S.  Ct.  346,  27  L.  ed. 
1015;  Chappell  v.  United  States,  160  U.  S.  510,  10  S.  Ct.  400,  40  L. 
ed.  510;  Sweaney  v.  United  States,  62  Wis.  400,  22  N.  W.  610. 

281  High  Bridge  Lumber  Co.  v.  United  States,  69  Fed.  325. 

282  Sweet  v.  Rechel,  159  U.  S.  402,  16  S.  Ct.  43,  40  L.  ed.  188. 

283  Cherokee  Nation  v.  Kansas  Ry.  Co.,  135  U.  S.  659,  10  S.  Ct. 
963,  34  L.  ed.  295;  Sweet  v.  Eechel,  159  U.  S.  402,  16  S.'Ct.  43,  40 
L.  ed.  188;  Bauman  v.  Ross,  167  U.  S.  599,  17  S.  Ct.  966,  42  L.  ed. 
270;  Backus  v.  Fort  Street  etc.  Co.,  169  U.  S.  567,  18  S.  Ct.  445,  42 
L.  ed.  853. 

2S4  United  States  v.  Dunnington,  146  U.  S.  353,  13  S.  Ct.  79,  36 
L.  ed.  996. 

285  Pryzbylowicz  v.  Missouri  Ry.  Co.,  3  McCrary,  5S6. 

286  Kohl  v.  United  States,  91  U.  S.  375,  23  L.  ed.  449;  Sear!  v. 
School  District,  124  U.  S.  199,  8  S.  Ct.  460,  31  L.  ed.  415;  Chappell 
v.  United  States,  160  U.  S.  513,  10  S.  Ct.  400,  40  L.  ed.  510. 

287  United  States  v.  Jones,  109  U.  S.  519,  3  S.  Ct.  346,  27  L.  ed. 
1015;  Bauman  v.  Boss,  167  U.  S.  593,  17  S.  Ct.  966,  42  L.  ed.  270. 

288  Kohl  v.  United  States,  91  U.  S.  377,  23  L.  ed.  449. 

289  Boom  Co.  v.  Patterson,  98  U.  S.  408,  25  L.  ed.  206;  Great  Falls 


661  Due  Process  of  Law.  Am.  V 

as  well  as  the  individual,290  the  means  of  ascertaining  which 
is  to  be  in  the  discretion  of  Congress;291  but  the  value  of  the 
property  to  the  owner  is  the  criterion  of  compensation  and  not 
the  value  to  the  government;  so  if  a  lock  and  dam  are  taken, 
the  franchise  to  collect  tolls  is  also  taken,  and  the  fact  that  the 
franchise  is  of  no  value  to  the  government  cannot  deprive  the 
owner  of  his  right  to  compensation  for  it.291a  The  loss  caused 
by  the  appropriation  is  also  to  be  considered,292  and  the  measure 
of  compensation  due  a  railway  company  for  opening  a  street 
across  its  tracks  is  the  decrease  in  the  value  of  the  use  of  the 
right  of  way  arising  from  the  use  of  the  street.293  Improve- 
ments by  a  riparian  owner  cannot  be  taken  by  a  railroad  com- 
pany without  compensation,  although  such  improvements  were 
erected  in  violation  of  an  act  of  Congress.294  The  owner  is 
entitled  to  the  full  value  of  his  property  taken,295  but  while 
it  is  true  that  a  full  and  perfect  equivalent  must  be  given  in- 
dependently of  any  benefit  the  owner  may  receive  in  common 
with  the  public,296  yet  direct  benefit  or  injury  to  the  remain- 
ing land  should  be  considered  in  making  the  award.297  It  is 
no  defense  to  a  condemnation  proceeding  that  the  amount  ap- 
propriated by  Congress  is  insufficient  to  cover  the  value  of  the 

Mfg.  Co.  v.  Attorney  General,  124  U.  S.  595,  8  S.  Ct.  631,  31  L.  ed. 
527;  Laflin  v.  Chicago  etc.  By.  Co.,  33  Fed.  420;  Santa  Ana  v.  Harlin, 
99  Cal.  542,  34  Pac.  226;  West  Virginia  etc.  E.  K.  v.  Gibson,  94  Ky. 
347,  21  S.  W.  1055. 

290  Chcs  pe  ke  &  Ohio  Canal  Co.  v.  Key,  3  Cr.  C.  C.  599,  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  2649. 

291  Chesapeake  &  Ohio  Canal  Co.  v.  Key,  3  Cr.  C.  C.  599,  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  2649;  Swan  v.  Williams,  2  Mich.  427.  And  see  Munn  v. 
Illinois,  94  U.  S.  113,  24  L.  ed.  77. 

291  a  Monongahela  Nav.  Co.  v.  United  States,  148  U.  S.  343,  13  S. 
Ct.  622,  37  L.  ed.  463. 

292  Bauman  v.  Boss,  167  U.  S.  574,  17  S.  Ct.  966,  42  L.  ed.  270. 

293  Chicago  etc.  Ky.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  166  U.  S.  250,  17  S.  Ct.  581, 
41  L.  ed.  994. 

294  Railway  Co.  v.  Eenwick,  102  U.  S.  182,  26  L.  ed.  51. 

295  Peck's  Case,  14  Ct.  of  CI.  84. 

296  Monongahela  Nav.  Co.  v.  United  States,  148  U.  S.  326.  13  S. 
Ct.  622,  37  L.  ed.  463. 

297  Bauman  v.  Ross,  167  U.  S.  582,  17  S.  Ct.  979,  42  L.  ed.  270. 


Am.  V  Due  Process  of  Law.  GG2 

property;298  the  measure  of  compensation  is  a  judicial  ques- 
tion, and  the  court  may  disregard  the  legislative  direction  as  to 
the  compensation  to  be  allowed.299 

298  United  States  v.  Gettysburg  etc.  Ey.  Co.,  160  TL  S.  684,  16 
S.  Ct.  431,  40  L.  ed.  576. 

299  Monongahela  Nav.  Co.  v.  United  States,  148  U.  S.  327,  13  S. 
Ct.  622,  37  L.  ed.  463  j  New  York  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Long,  69  Conn. 
437,  37  Atl.  1073. 


663  Criminal  Trials.  Am.  VI 


ARTICLE  VI. 

MODE  OF  TKIAL.  IN  CEIMINAL  PKOCEEDING. 

ACCUSED  ENTITLED  TO  SPEEDY  TRIAL;  TO  CONFRONT  WITNESSES; 
TO  HAVE  COUNSEL;  PLACE  OF  TRIAL,  ETC. 

In  all  criminal  prosecutions,  the  accused  shall  enjoy 
the  right  to  a  speedy  and  public  trial,  by  an  impartial 
jury  of  the  State  and  district  wherein  the  crime  shall 
have  been  committed,  which  district  shall  have  been 
previously  ascertained  by  law,  and  to  be  informed  of 
the  nature  and  cause  of  the  accusation ;  to  be  confronted 
with  the  witnesses  against  him ;  to  have  compulsory  pro- 
cess for  obtaining  witnesses  in  his  favor,  and  to  have 
the  assistance  of  counsel  for  his  defense. 

Amendment,  proposed  25th  September,  1789;  ratified  15th  December. 
1791. 

Scope. 

The  prohibitions  contained  in  the  Sixth  Amendment  were 
designed  to  prevent  interference  with  the  rights  of  the  states 
and  their  citizens,  and  are  restrictive  of  the  power  of  the  fed- 
eral government  alone.1  They  do  not  apply  to  the  acts  of  the 
legislatures  of  the  several  states,2  though  the  article  applies  to 
offenses  committed  within  the  limits  of  a  state.3  There  is  no 
conflict  between  this  amendment  and  article  III,  section  2, 

1  Barron  v.  Baltimore,  7  Pet.  243,  8  L.  ed.  672;  Fox  v.  Ohio,  5 
How.  410,  12  L.  ed.  213;  Eilenbeeker  v.  Plymouth  County,  134  U.  S. 
35,  10  S.  Ct.  424,  33  L.  ed.  801;  Davis  v.  Texas,  139  U.  3.  653,  11 
S.  Ct.  675,  35  L.  ed.  300. 

2  Twitchell  v.  Commonwealth,  7  Wall.  321,  19  L.  ed.  223;  Murphy 
v.  People,  2  Cow.  815;  Jackson  v.  Wood,  2  Cow.  819;  Campbell  v. 
State,  11  Ga.  353;  Guillote  v.  New  Orleans,  12  La.  Ann.  432;  Ex  parte 
Smith,  10  Wend.  449;  Walker  v.  Sauvinet,  92  U.  S.  90,  23  L.  ed. 
678. 

3  United  States  v.  Dawson,  15  How.  467,  14  L.  ed.  775. 


Am.  VI  Criminal  Trials.  664 

clause  3;  the  latter  provides  for  jury  trials  according  to  settled 
common-law  rules,  and  the  former  declares  what  those  rules 
are.4  And  while  article  III  designates  the  place  of  trial  for 
offenses  against  United  States  laws  generally,  this  amendment 
applies  only  to  crimes  committed  within  a  state.5 

A  crime  committed  against  the  laws  of  the  United  States 
outside  the  limits  of  a  state  is  not  local,  and  may  be  tried  at 
such  place  as  Congress  shall  designate  by  law.6  "To  be  in- 
formed of  the  nature  and  cause  of  the  accusation"  means  that 
the  offense  must  be  set  out  with  clearness  and  all  necessary 
certainty,  to  apprise  the  accused  of  the  crime  of  which  he 
stands  charged,7  and  this  requirement  applies  as  well  to  crim- 
inal proceedings  for  arrest  as  to  the  indictment  itself.8 

Speedy  Trial. 

The  right  to  a  speedy  trial  means  a  right  to  trial  at  the 
earliest  opportunity,  having  regard  to  time  for  the  prosecu- 
tion to  prepare,  with  reasonable  diligence,  for  the  trial,  and 
greater  delay  is  not  allowable.0  It  is  the  duty  of  the  prosecu- 
tion to  diligently  prosecute  the  case  against  the  accused,10 
without  vexatious,  capricious  and  oppressive  delays.11  The  pro- 
vision does  not  mean  that  in  all  possible  circumstances  a  person 
shall  have  a  speedy  and  public  trial;  there  may  be  times  when 
the  civil  administration  will  be  suspended  by  force  of  uncon- 
trollable circumstances.12     Nor  is  the  accused  entitled  to  his 

4  Callan  v.  Wilson,  127  U.  S.  549,  8  S.  Ct.  1301,  32  L.  ed.  223. 

5  United  States  v.  Dawson,  15  How.  4S7,  14  L.  ed.  775;  Nashville 
etc.  By.  Co.  v.  Alabama,  128  U.  S.  101,  9  S.  Ct.  28,  32  L.  ed.  352. 

6  United  States  v.  Dawson,  15  How.  487,  14  L.  ed.  775.  And  see 
Anderson  v.  Dunn,  6  Wheat.  215,  5  L.  ed.  242. 

7  United  States  v.  Noelke,  17  Blatchf.  554,  1  Fed.  426;  United  States 
v.  Cruikshank,  92  U.  S.  542,  23  L.  ed.  5S8. 

8  In  re  Coleman,  15  Blatchf.  415,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2980. 

9  United  States   v.  Fox,  3   Mont.   512. 

\  10  In  re  Begerow,  133  Cal.  349,  S5  Am.  St.  Eep.  178,  65  Pac.  828, 
56  L.  B.  A.  513. 

n   Nixon  v.  State,  2  Smedes  &  M.  497,  41  Am.  Dec.  601. 

12.  Ex  parte  Turman,  26  Tex.  708,  84  Am.  Dec.  598. 


6*35  Criminal  Trials.  Am.  VI 

discharge  by  reason  of  delay  made  necessary  "by  the  law  itself;13 
as  where  the  court  is  engaged  in  the  trial  of  another  cause,14 
or  where  the  term  expired  before  trial  could  be  had.15  The 
provision  is  for  the  speedy  trial  of  one  already  accused  and  not 
for  investigations  by  a  grand  jury.16 

Jury  Trial.* 

The  "jury"  referred  to  is  a  jury  constituted,  as  it  was  at 
common  law,  of  twelve  men,  neither  more  nor  less.17  This  re- 
quirement applies  to  prosecutions  in  the  federal  courts  alone;18 
it  does  not  guarantee  trials  by  jury  in  the  state  courts,19  and 
so  does  not  preclude  a  trial  without  a  jury  in  a  state  court,20 
or  a  trial  with  a  jury  of  less  than  twelve  men.21  The  amend- 
ment secured  to  the  people  of  the  territories  the  right  to  a 
trial  by  jury,22  and  it  is  applicable  also  to  the  District  of 
Columbia.23 

The  provision  relates  not  only  to  felonies,  but  also  to  mis- 
demeanors where  the  punishment  involves  deprivation  of  lib- 
erty.24 

13  Clark  v.  Commonwealth,  29  Pa.  St.  129;  Ex  parte  State,  76  Ala. 
482* 

14  People  v.  Bene,  130  Cal.  159,  62  Pac.  404. 

15  Erwin  v.  State,  29  Ohio  St.  186,  23  Am.  Eep.  733;  Ex  parte 
Lowrie,  4  Utah,  177,  7  Pac.  493. 

16  Counselman  v.  Hitchcock,  142  U.  S.  563,  12  S.  Ct.  195,  35  L. 
ed.  1110. 

17  Thompson  v.  Utah,  170  U.  S.  349,  18  S.  Ct.  620,  42  L.  ed.  1061;  V 
Maxwell  v.  Dow,  176  U.  S.  586,  20  S.  Ct.  448,  44  L.  ed.  597. 

is  In  re  Sawyer,  124  U.  S.  200,  8  S.  Ct.  482,  31  L.  ed.  402;  Eilen- 
tecker  v.  Plymouth  County,  134  U.  S.  35,  10  S.  Ct.  424,  33  L.  ed.  801 ; 
Williams  v.  Hert,  110  Fed.  166. 

19  Brooks  v.  Missouri,  124  U.  S.  397,  8  S.  Ct.  443,  31  L.  ed.  454. 

20  Iowa  Central  Ky.  Co.  v.  Iowa,  160  U.  S.  394,  16  S.  Ct.  344,  40 
L.  ed.  467. 

21  Maxwell  v.  Dow,  176  U.  S.  5S7,  20  S.  Ct.  448,  44  L.  ed.  597. 

22  Callan  v.  Wilson,  127  U.  S.  550,  8  S.  Ct.  1301,  32  L.  ed.  223; 
Keynolds  v.  United  States,  98  U.  S.  154,  25  L.  ed.  244. 

23  Capitol  Traction  Co.  v.  Hof,  174  U.  S.  5,  19  S.  Ct.  580,  43  L.  el. 
873. 

24  Callan  v.  Wilson,  127  U.  S.  549,  8  S.  Ct.  131,  32  L.  ed.  223. 

♦See,   also,   ante,  p.   551. 


Am.  VI  Criminal  Trials.  666 

Witnesses,  and  Assistance  of  Counsel. 

Facts  provable  only  by  witnesses  can  be  given  in  evidence 
only  by  witnesses  who  confront  the  accused  and  whom  he  may 
examine.25  The  admission  of  dying  declarations  constitute  an 
exception  to  this  rule.26  The  constitution  gives  this  privilege 
to  the  accused,  but  where  the  burden  has  been  cast  on  him  of 
showing  that  he  has  not  kept  the  witness  away,  and  he  fails, 
the  witness'  testimony  at  a  former  trial  for  the  same  offense 
is  admissible;27  but  where  the  accused  is  in  no  way  responsible 
for  the  absence  of  a  witness  a  statement  signed  by  such  witness 
is  not  admissible  against  him.28  It  has  been  declared  by  a 
state  court  that  the  provisions  of  a  similar  clause  are  satisfied 
if  the  accused  has  once  been  confronted  with  and  had  an  oppor- 
tunity to  cross-examine  a  witness,29  and  this  would  seem  to 
be  the  ground  upon  which  it  has  been  held  that  the  testimony  of 
a  witness  who  has  removed  from  the  jurisdiction  may  be  read 
at  a  second  trial.30  The  verified  testimony  of  a  witness  who 
has  died  since  the  first  trial  may  be  read  in  evidence  at  the 
second  trial.31 

Where  a  defendant  admits  that  a  witness,  if  produced  against 
him,  would  testify  to  certain  facts,  he  thereby  waives  this 
right.32  As  respects  the  requirement  that  the  accused  be  pres- 
ent at  his  trial,  the  trial  commences  at  least  at  the  time  when 
the  impaneling  of  the  jury  begins,33  and  it  has  been  held  that 

25  Kirby  v.  United  States,  174  U.  S.  55,  19  S.  Ct.  574,  43  L.  ed. 
890;  United  States  v.  Angell,  11  Fed.  34;  People  v.  Lee  Fat,  54  Cal. 
531. 

36  Kirby  v.  United  States,  174  U.  S.  61,  19  S.  Ct.  574,  43  L.  ed. 
890;  Green  v.  State,  66  Ala.  40. 

27  Keynolds  v.  United  States,  98  U.  S.  160,  25  L.  ed.  244. 

28  Motes  v.  United  States,  178  U.  S.  458,  20  S.  Ct.  993,  44  L.  ed. 
1150. 

29  People  v.  Penhallow,  42  Hun,  103. 

30  Lowe  v.  State,  86  Ala.  53,  5  South.  438. 

31  Mattox  v.  United  States,  156  U.  S.  242,  15  S.  Ct.  339,  36  L. 
ed.  917;  Brown  v.  Commonwealth,  73  Pa.  St.  321,  13  Am.  Rep.  740; 
State  v.  O'Blenis,  24  Mo.  402,  69  Am.  Dec.  435.  But  see  Cline  v. 
State,  36  Tex.  Cr.  320,  61  Am.  St.  Rep.  850,  36  S.  W.  1099. 

32  United  States  v.  Sacramento,  2  Mont.  239,  25  Am.  Rep.  742. 

33  Hopt  v.  Utah,  110  U.  S.  578,  4  S.  Ct.  202,  28  L.  ed.  262. 


667  Criminal  Trials.  Am.  VI 

after  indictment  found,  nothing  can  be  done  in  the  absence  of 
the  prisoner.34  In  cases  of  felony  it  is  not  in  the  power  of 
the  prisoner  in  person,  or  by  counsel,  to  waive  the  right  to  be 
personally  present.35 

The  last  clause  of  this  amendment  expressly  abrogates  the 
rule  by  which  a  prisoner  might  be  denied  appearance  by 
counsel.36 

The  guaranties  of  this  article  were  not  ipso  facto  extended 
to  the  Hawaiian  Islands  by  the  assumption  of  sovereignty  of 
those  islands  by  the  United  States.37 

34  Lewis  v.  United  States,  146  TJ.  S.  372,  13  S.  Ct.  136,  36  L.  ed. 
1011. 

35  Lewis  v.  United  States,  146  U.  S.  372,  13  S.  Ct.  136,  36  L.  ed. 
1011;  Territory  v.  Day,  2  Okla.  411,  37  Pac.  806. 

36  Johnson  v.  Lewis,  2  Mont.  159. 

37  Territory  of  Hawaii  v.  Mankichi,  190  U.  S.  197,  23  S.  Ct.  787, 
47  L.  ed.  1016. 


Am.  VII  Civil  Trials.  6G3 


* 


ARTICLE  VII. 

EIGHT  OF  TRIAL  BY  JURY  IN  CIVIL  ACTIONS. 

In  suits  at  common  law,  where  the  value  in  contro- 
versy shall  exceed  twenty  dollars,  the  right  of  trial  by 
jury  shall  be  preserved,  and  no  fact  tried  by  a  jury  shall 
be  otherwise  re-examined  in  any  court  of  the  United 
States,  than  according  to  the  rules  of  the  common  law. 

Amendment,  proposed  25th  September,  1789;  ratified  15th  December, 
1791. 

Trial  by  Jury  in  Civil  Cases. 

The  guaranty  of  jury  trials  in  suits  at  common  law,  contained 
in  this  amendment,  applies  only  to  trials  in  the  United  States 
courts  and  not  to  trials  in  the  state  courts.1  The  states  are 
left  free  to  regulate  trials  in  their  own  courts.2  The  restric- 
tion is  general  and  applies  to  all  departments  of  government 
alike;3  to  the  legislative  and  judiciary  of  the  territories,4  and 
to  the  governor  as  much  as  any  other  department.5     It  applies 

1  Livingston  v.  Moore,  7  Pet.  469,  8  L.  ed.  751;  Fox  v.  Ohio,  5 
How.  534,  12  L.  ed.  213;  Justices  v.  Murray,  9  Wall.  274,  19  L.  ed. 
658;  -Edwards  v.  Elliott,  21  Wall.  557,  22  L.  ed.  487;  Walker  v.  Sau- 
vinet,  92  U.  S.  92,  23  L.  ed.  678;  Pearson  v.  Yewdall,  95  U.  S.  296, 
24  L.  ed.  436;  Boring  v.  Williams,  27  Ala.  14;  Dawson  v.  Shaver,  1 
Blackf.  204;  Colt  v.  Eves,  12  Conn.  243;  Foster  v.  Jackson,  57  Ga. 
206;  Railroad  Co.  v.  Heath,  9  Ind.  558;  State  v.  Keyes,  8  Vt.  57,  30 
Am.  Dec.  450;  Huntington  v.  Bishop,  5  Vt.  186;  Livingston  v.  Mayor, 
8  Wend.  85,  22  Am.  Dec.  622;  Lee  v.  Tillotson,  24  Wend.  337,  35  Am. 
Dec.  624;  Huston  v.  Wadsworth,  5  Colo.  213. 

2  Pearson  v.  Yewdall,  95  U.  S.  294,  24  L.  ed.  436;  Jones  v.  People, 
2  Colo.  509;  Venine  v.  Archibald,  3  Colo.  1C3. 

3  Kleinschmidt  v.  Dunphy,  1  Mont.  118. 

4  Webster  v.  Reid,  11  How.  437,  13  L.  ed.  761;  American  Pub. 
Co.  v.  Fisher,  166  U.  S.  467,  17  S.  Ct.  619,  41  L.  ed.  1079;  Whallon  v. 
Bancroft,  4  Minn.  109. 

0  Claim  of  Beside,  9  Opin.  Atty.  Gen.   200. 


669  Civil  Trials.  Am.  VII 

also  to  the  courts  of  the  District  of  Columbia,6  and  to  tribunals 
established  under  a  provisional  government.7     The  constitution  ■ 
does  not,  by  this  amendment,  confer  the  right  of  trial  by  jury; 
it  simply  preserves  it  inviolate  where  it  existed  already.8 

The  wager  of  law,  if  it  ever  had  a  legal  existence  in  the 
United  States,  is  completely  abolished.9 

A  litigant's  right  to  unanimity  of  verdict  in  a  territorial 
court  cannot  be  taken  away  by  the  legislature.10    - 

The  phrase  "common  law"  is  used  in  contradistinction  to 
equity,  admiralty  and  maritime  jurisdiction,  and  embraces  all 
suits  at  common  law,  whatever  may  be  their  peculiar  form, 
brought  to  settle  legal  rights.11  Such  suits  are  those  in  which 
legal  rights  alone  are  ascertained  and  determined.1^2  Accord- 
ingly the  provision  does  not  embrace  the  established,  exclusive 
or  concurrent  jurisdiction  of  equity  courts,13  and  while  juries 
are  used  in  courts  of  equity  to  "inform  the  conscience  of  the 
court/'"14  and  while  a  chancery  court  has  the  power  to  summon 

6  Capitol  Traction   Co.  v.  Hof,  174  U.  S.   5,  19  S.  Ct.  580,  43  L. 
ed.  873;  Callan  v.  Wilson,  127  U.  S.  550,  8  S.  Ct.  1301,  32  L.  ed.  223. 
T  Scott  v.  Bilgeny,  40  Miss.  119. 

8  McBride  v.  Stradley,  103  Ind.  465;  Seeley  v.  Bridgeport,  53  Conn. 
1. 

9  Childress  v.  Emory,  8  Wheat.  675,  5  L.  ed.  705;  Thompson  v. 
French.  10  Yerg.  456. 

10  Walker  v.  New  Mexico  E.  E.  Co.,  165  TJ.  S.  595,  17  S.  Ct.  421, 

41  L.  ed.  837;  American  Pub.  Co.  v.  Fisher,  166  U.  S.  467,  17  S.  Ct. 
619,  41  L.  ed.  1079;  Springville  v.  Thomas,  166  U.  S.  708,  17  S.  Ct. 
717,  41  L.  ed.  1172;  Thompson  v.  Utah,  170  U.  S.  346,  18  S.  Ct.  620, 

42  L.   ed.  1061. 

ii  Parsons  v.  Bedford,  3  Pet.  483,  7  L.  ed.  732;  Insurance  Co.  v. 
Comstock,  16  Wall.  358,  21  L.  ed.  493;  United  States  v.  La  Vengeance, 
3  Dall.  297,  1  L.  ed.  610;  Webster  v.  Eeid,  11  How.  437,  13  L.  ed. 
761;  Baines  v.  The  James  and  Catherine,  Baldw.  544. 

12.  Irvine  v.  Marshall,  20  How.  565,  15  L.  ed.  994;  Keith  v.  Buck- 
ingham, 18  Blatchf.  246,  2  Fed.  834;  The  B.  F.  Woolsey,  18  Blatchf. 
344,  3  Fed.  457. 

13  Shields  v.  Thomas,  18  How.  262,  15  L.  ed.  368;  Home  Ins.  Co. 
v.  Virginia-Carolina   etc.   Co.,  109  Fed.   6S1. 

14  Parsons  v.  Bedford,  3  Pet.  446.  7  L.  ed.  732;  Wilson  v.  Eiddle, 
123  U.  S.  608,  8  S.  Ct.  255,  31  L.  ed.  280. 


Am.  VII  Civil  Trials.  670 

a  jury,  yet  that  power  cannot  be  regarded  as  the  equivalent  of 
the  right  to  a  jury  which  a  party  may  demand  under  this 
amendment;15  the  right  does  not  extend  to  purely  equity  suits.16 
But,  on  the  other  hand,  the  right  cannot  be  impaired  in  the 
federal  courts  by  blending  with  a  common-law  claim  a  claim 
for  equitable  relief.17 

Suits  in  admiralty  are  not  contemplated  by  this  clause,  al- 
though they  may  be  cases  wherein  the  common-law  courts  pos- 
sess a  concurrent  jurisdiction.18 

The  remission  of  a  part  of  a  verdict,  followed  by  a  judgment 
for  the  remainder,  as  a  condition  of  the  denial  of  a  new  trial, 
does  not  deprive  the  defendant  of  his  constitutional  right  to 
have  the  question  determined  by  a  jury,19  nor  does  a  rule  of 
court  authorizing  judgment  for  the  plaintiff  in  the  absence  of 
a  sufficient  affidavit  of  defense,  in  actions  ex  contractu,  where 
trie  plaintiff  has  filed  a  supporting  affidavit.20  The  direction 
of  a  verdict  in  a  case  where  the  court  is  convinced  that  a  con- 
trary verdict  would  be  set  aside,21  or  the  granting  of  a  non- 
suit for  want  of  sufficient  evidence,  are  likewise  unobjection- 
able.22 

15  Cates  v.  Allen,  149  U.  S.  459,  13  S.  Ct.  883,  37  L.  ed.  804. 

16  Shields  v.  Thomas,  18  How.  353,  15  L.  ed.  368;  Barton  v.  Bar- 
bour, 104  U.  S.  133,  26  L.  ed.  673;  Woodworth  v.  Kogers,  3  Wood.  & 
M.  135,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,018;  Ely  v.  M.  &  B.  Mfg.  Co.,  4  Pish.  Pat. 
Cas.  64,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4431;  Motes  v.  Bennett,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  642, 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  9884. 

17  Scott  v.  N«ely,  140  U.  S.  109,  11  S.  Ct.  712,  35  L.  ed.  358. 

18  Waring  v.  Clarke,  5  How.  441,  12  L.  ed.  226;  The  Huntress,  2 
Ware  (Dav.),  89,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6914;  United  States  v.  Bright,  Bright. 
N.  P.  19,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,647;  Baines  v.  The  James  &  Catherine,  Baldw. 
544,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  756;  United  States  v.  La  Vengeance,  3  Dall.  297,  1 
L.  ed.  610;  The  Margaret,  9  Wheat.  421,  6  L.  ed.  125;  The  Betsey, 
4  Cr.  443,  2  L.  ed.  673;  Whelan  v.  United  States,  7  Cr.  112,  3  L.  ed. 
286;  United  States  v.  The  Queen,  4  Ben.  237,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,107. 

19  Arkansas  Valley  etc.  Co.  v.  Mann,  130  U.  S.  69,  9  S.  Ct.  45S, 
32  L.  ed.  854. 

20  Fidelity  &  Deposit  Co.  v.  United  States,  187  U.  S.  315,  23  8. 
Ct.  120,  47  L.  ed.  194. 

21  Treat  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Standard  Steel  etc.  Co.,  157  U.  S.  675,  15  S. 
Ct.  718,  39  L.  ed.  853. 

22  Coughran  v.  Bigelow,  164  U.  S.  308,  17  S.  Ct.  117,  41  L.  ed. 
442. 


671  Civil  Trials.  Am.  VII 
Cases  Impliedly  Excepted. 


The  guaranty  does  not  apply  to  suits  against  the  govern- 
ment,23 nor  to  a  proceeding  under  statutory  provisions  and 
forms  specially  provided.24  It  does  not  embrace  motions  for 
summary  relief,25  as  that  judgment  may  be  entered  against  a 
party  on  an  appeal  bond,26  or  for  a  judgment  by  default  for 
failure  to  produce  books  and  papers,27  or  for  a  judgment  on  a 
forfeited  recognizance.28  Nor  does  it  extend  to  preliminary 
inquiries  which  do  not  involve  a  trial  of  the  merits;29  nor  to 
cases  where  the  facts  are  conceded;30  nor  to  a  proceeding  to 
annul  the  license  of  a  pilot;31  nor  to  a  proceeding  to  strike 
an  attorney's  name  from  the  roll  of  practitioners;32  nor  where 
there  is  a  default  in  proceedings  under  the  confiscation  laws,  in- 
volving a  seizure  on  land.33 

In  an  information  in  rem,  however,  the  claimant  is  entitled 
to  a  trial  by  jury,34  and  a  trial  by  referees  without  the  con- 
sent of  the  parties  is  not  allowable.35  In  proceedings  to  assess 
the  compensation  for  property  condemned  a  jury  trial  is  not 
required  by  this  provision.36     A  statute  appointing  commis- 

23  McElrath  v.  United  States,  102  U.  S.  426,  26  L.  ed.  189;  Mc- 
Elrath's  Motion,  12  Ct.  of  CI.  312. 

24  AMeman  v.  Booth,  21  How.  506,  16  Ir.  ed.  169;  Miller  v.  Me- 
Querry,  5  McLean,  469,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9583;  Ex  parte  Martin,  2  Paine, 
348,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9154. 

25  Banning  v.  Taylor,  24  Pa.  St.  289. 

26  Hiriat  v.  Ballou,  9  Pet.  167,  9  L.  ed.  85. 

27  United  States  v.  Distillery,  6  Biss.  483,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,966. 
•2.8  People  v.  Quig-g,  59  N.  Y.  83. 

29  Ex  parte  Martin,  2  Paine,  348,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9154. 

30  United  States  v.  Anthony,  11  Blatehf.  210,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,459. 

31  Low  v.  Commissioners,  B.  M.   Charlt.  302. 

32  Ex  parte  Wall,  107  U.  S.  288,  2  S.  Ct.  569,  27  L.  ed.  552. 

33  Miller  v.  United  States,  11  Wall.  268,  20  L.  ed.  135. 

34  United  States  v.  Barrels,  1  Bond,  587,  Fed.  Cas.  Xo.  15.938; 
United  States  v.  Distillery,  6  Biss.  483,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,966;  United 
States  v.  Packages,  Gilp.  235,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,151. 

35  United  States  v.  Bathbone,  2  Paine,  578,  Fed.  Cas.  Xo.  16,121. 

36  United  States  v.  Jones.  109  U.  S.  519,  3  S.  Ct.  346.  27  L.  ed. 
1015;  Banyan  v.  Boss,  167  U.  S.  593,  17  S.  Ct.  966,  42  L.  ed.  270; 
Bonaparte  v.  Camden  etc.  B.  E.  Co.,  Baldw.  205,  Fed.  Cas.  Xo.  1617. 


/ 


Am.  VII  Civil  Trials.  672 

sioners  to  determine  titles,  and  making  their  decisions  final, 
does  not  contravene  this  amendment;37  but  the  state  legisla- 
ture cannot  direct  the  federal  courts  to  appoint  commissioners 
on  questions  which  should  be  submitted  to  a  jury.38 

Re-examination  of  Facts. 

The  second  clause  of  this  amendment  is  substantial  and  in- 
dependent and  applies  to  all  cases  which  have  beeen  tried  by 
a  jury  in  the  state  courts.39  The  only  mode  of  review  is  on  a 
motion  for  a  new  trial.40  A  federal  court  will  refuse  to  re- 
examine findings  of  facts  erroneously  made  by  a  jury  in  con- 
demnation proceedings  in  a  state  court.41  Since  this  amend- 
ment Congress  cannot  confer  authority  to  grant  new  trials  in 
cases  tried  by  juries  except  to  redress  errors  of  law,42  and  an 
act  of  Cougress  providing  for  the  retrial  of  the  facts  in  certain 
removed  cases  is  void.43  The  removal  of  a  cause  after  trial 
and  verdict  in  a  state  court  should  be  denied.44  A  judgment 
recovered  in  a  state  court  against  a  receiver  appointed  by  a 
federal  court  is  conclusive  of  the  amount  of  the  claim.45  No 
review  of  the  rulings  of  the  court  can  be  had  under  Eevised 
Statutes,  section  649,  unless  the  record  shows  that  a  written 
stipulation  waiving  a  jury  was  filed  with  the  clerk,46 

37  Barker  v.  Jackson,  1  Paine,  559,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  989. 
3S  Green  v.  Biddle,  8  Wheat.  1,  5  L.  ed.  547;  Bank  of  Hamilton 
v.  Dudley,  2  Pet.  492,  7  L.  ed.  496. 

39  Justices  v.  Murray,  9  Wall.  277,  19  L.  ed.  658. 

40  Parsons  v.  Bedford,  3  Pet.  433,  7  L.  ed.  732;  United  States  v. 
Wonson,  1  Gall.  20,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,750;  Patrie  v.  Murray,  43  Barb. 
323,  29  How.  Pr.  312;  Wetherbee  v.  Johnson,  14  Mass.  412. 

41  Chicago  etc.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  166  U.  S.  243,  17  S.  Ct.  587, 
41  L.  ed.  979.  - 

42  Parsons  v.  Bedford,  3  Pet.  433,  7  L.  ed.  732;  Bank  of  Hamiltoi 
Dudley,  2  Pet.  492,  7  L.  ed.  496. 

43  Justices  v.  Murray,  9  Wall.  277,  19  L.  ed.  658. 

44  McKee  v.  Eains,  10  Wall.  25,  19  L.  ed.  860;  Stevenson  v.  Will- 
iams, 19  Wall.  576,  22  L.  ed.  162;  Bryant  v.  Rich,  106  Mass.  193,  8 
Am.  Rep.  316.  See,  also,  Spencer  v.  Lapsley,  20  How.  264,  15  L.  ed. 
902. 

45  Dillingham  v.  Hawk,  60  Fed.  497. 

46  Kearney  v.  Case,  12  Wall.  275,  20  L.  ed.  395. 


673  Civil  Trials.  Am.  VII 

Waiver  of  Jury. 

The  Seventh  Amendment  has  no  application  in  a  case  where 
the  parties  have  waived  a  jury  trial.47  But  trial  by  jury  is 
a  fundamental  guaranty  of  the  rights  and  liberties  of  the  people, 
and  every  reasonable  presumption  should  be  indulged  against 
its  waiver.48  This  does  not  mean,  however,  that  waiver  may 
not  be  presumed  in  any  case  from  the  conduct  of  the  parties,49 
and  where  a  party  is  present  by  counsel  and  goes  to  trial  without 
objection  he  thereby  waives  his  right  to  a  jury;50  but  in  all  such 
cases  the  facts  amounting  to  waiver  must  clearly  appear.51 
The  parties  may,  by  stipulation,  waive  a  jury  and  submit  the 
issues  of  fact  to  the  court.52  The  right  may  be  waived  by 
stipulation  in  open  court.53  The  provisions  of  the  act  of  1865, 
permitting  trials  of  fact  by  the  court,  must  be  strictly  fol- 
lowed, and  a  party  desiring  to  waive  a  jury  and  save  their 
rights  must  file  a  written  stipulation.54  A  waiver  sufficiently 
appears  if  the  record  recites  that  the  cause  was  called  for  trial 
by  the  court,  "the  jury  having  been  waived  in  writing"  ;55  but 
a  statement  to  the  effect  that  "a  jury  having  been  impaneled 
and  sworn  and  the  introduction  of  evidence  having  been  com- 
menced, by  stipulation  of  the  parties  duly  entered,  the  jury 
withdrawn,   trial   to   the   jury   waived,"   etc.,   is   insufficient.56 

47  Parsons  v.  Armor,  3  Pet.  425,  7  L.  ed.  724. 

48  Hodges  v.  Easton,  106  U.  S.  411,  1  S.  Ct.  307,  27  L.  ed.  169. 

49  Bank  of  Columbia  v.  Okely,  4  Wheat.  243,  4  L.  ed.  559;  Flint 
etc.  Co.  v.  Foster,  5  Ga.  213,  48  Am.  Dec.  265. 

50  Kearney  v.  Case,  12  Wall.  284,  20  L.  ed.  395. 

51  United  States  v.  Kathbone,  2  Paine,  579,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,121. 

52  United  States  v.  Distilled  Spirits,  14  Wall.  44,  20  L.  ed.  815; 
Bamberger  v.  Terry,  103  U.  S.  40,  26  L.  ed.  317;  Supervisors  v.  Ken- 
nicott,  103  U.  S.  554,  26  L.  ed.  486;  United  States  v.  Kathbone,  2 
Paine,  578. 

53  Moncure  v.  Zunts,  11  Wall.  416,  20  L.  ed.  181;  Kearney  v.  Case, 
12  Wall.  275,  20  L.  ed.  395;  Bamberger  v.  Terry,  103  U.  S.  43,  26  L. 
ed.  317;  Richmond  v.  Smith,  15  Wall.  429,  21  L.  ed.  200. 

54  Flanders  v.  Tweed,  9  Wall.  429-431,  19  L.  ed.  €78;  Bond  v.  Dus- 
tin,  112  U.  S.  607,  5  S.  Ct.  297,  28  L.  ed.  835;  Rush  v.  Newman,  58 
Fed.  160;  Duncan  v.  Atchison  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  72  Fed.  811. 

55  Fleitas  v.  Cockrem,  101  U.  S.  301,  25  L.  ed.  954. 

56  Cudahy  Packing  Co.  v.  Sioux  Nat.  Bank,  69  Fed.  782. 

Notes   on   Constitution — 43 


Am.  VII  Civil  Trials.  674 

Without  waiver  of  a  jury,  it  is  error  for  the  court  to  substitute 
itself  for  the  jury  and  find  the  facts  involved  and  render  judg- 
ment thereon,57  bat  such  error  cannot  be  taken  advantage  of 
collaterally.58 

57  Baylis  v.  Travelers'  Ins.  Co.,  113  U.  S.  316,  5  S.  Ct.  494,  2S  L. 
ed.  989;  Sulzer  v.  Watson,  39  Fed.  415;  Thomas  v.  American  Land 
Co.,  47  Fed.  559. 

58  Maxwell  v.  Stewart,  21  Wall.  73,  22  L.  ed.  564,  22  Wall.  79, 
22  L.  ed.  564.  And  see  Humphries  v.  District  of  Columbia,  174  U. 
S.  195,  19  S.  Ct.  639,  43  L.  ed.  944. 


675  Punishment  for  Crime,  Am.  VIII 


ARTICLE  VIII. 

BAIL— FINES— PUNISHMENTS. 

Excessive  bail  shall  not  be  required,  nor  excessive 
fines  imposed,  nor  cruel  and  unusual  punishments  in- 
flicted. 

Amendment,  proposed  25th  September,  1789;  ratified  15th  December, 
1791. 

The  federal  laws  are  framed  on  the  theory  that  a  person 
accused  of  crime  may  be  admitted  to  bail  until  adjudged  guilty 
in  a  court  of  last  resort,1  but  a  state  court  has  declared  that 
under  a  state  constitutional  provision  the  right  to  bail  is  not 
operative  after  trial  and  conviction.2 

Habeas  corpus  will  not  lie  to  revise  a  sentence  on  the  ground 
that  the  fine  or  imprisonment  prescribed  was  excessive.3  Where 
an  imprisonment  or  judgment  exceeds  the  authority  of  the 
court  the  prisoner  cannot  be  released  on  habeas  corpus  until 
he  has  served  or  performed  as  much  of  the  sentence  or  judg- 
ment as  the  court  could  impose.4  A  statute  providing  for  a 
heavier  sentence  for  a  second  offense  does  not  impose  a  cruel 
and  unusual  punishment.5  Punishment  for  crime  by  whipping 
is  not  a  cruel  and  unusual  punishment.6 

The  prohibitions  of  tbis  amendment  apply  to  the  federal 
government  and  not  to  the  states.7  / 

1  Hudson  v.  Parker,  156  TJ.  S.  2S5,  15  S.  Ct.  450,  39  L.  ed.  424.    d 

2  Ex  parte  Schwartz,  2  Tex.  App.  74. 

3  Ex  parte  Watkins,  3  Pet.  203,  7  L.  ed.  650;  Ex  parte  Wilson, 
114  U.  S.  583,  11  S.  Ct.  870,  29  L.  ed.  89. 

4  In  re  Swann,  150  U.  S.  653,  14  S.  Ct.  225,  37  L.  ed.  1207. 

5  McDonald  v.  Massachusetts,  180  U.  S.  313,  21  S.  Ct.  389,  45  L. 
ed.  542. 

6  Garcia  v.  Territory,  1  N.  Mex.  415. 

7  Barron  v.  Mayor  of  Baltimore,  7  Pet.  243,  8  L.  ed.  672;  Pervear 
v.  Commonwealth,  5  Wall.  480,  18  L.  ed.  608;  McElvaine  v.  Brush, 
142  U.  S.  159,  12  S.  Ct.  156,  35  L.  ed.  971;  James  v.  Commonwealth, 
12  Serg.  &  E.  220;  Barker  v.  People,  3  Cow.  686,  15  Am.  Dec.  322; 
Foote  v.  State,  59  Md.  264. 


Am.  IX  Reserved  Powers.  676 


ARTICLE  IX. 

EIGHTS  OF  PEOPLE  NOT  DISPARAGED  BY  CONSTITUTION.* 

The  enumeration  in  the  Constitution,  of  certain 
rights,  shall  not  be  construed  to  deny  or  disparage  oth- 
ers retained  by  the  people. 

Amendment,  proposed  25th  September,  1789;  ratified  15th  December, 

1701. 

The  Nmth  Amendment  restrains  only  the  powers  of  the  gen- 
eral government.1 

l  Livingston  v.  Moore,  7  Pet.  551,  552,  8  L.  ed.  751;  Holmes  v. 
Jennison,  14  Pet.  558,  10  L.  ed.  579;  Green  v.  Holway,  101  Mass.  250, 
3  Am.  Rep.  344. 


See,  also,  note  to  amendment  X. 


677  Reserved  Powers.  Am.  X 


ARTICLE  X. 

POWERS  RESERVED  TO  THE  STATES  OE  TO  THE  PEOPLE. 

The  powers  not  delegated  to  the  United  States  by 
the  Constitution,  nor  prohibited  by  it  to  the  States,  are 
reserved  to  the  States  respectively,  or  to  the  people. 

Amendment  proposed  25th  September,  1789;  ratified  15th  December, 
1791. 

Sovereignty. 

By  the  Revolution  the  duties  and  powers  of  government  de- 
volved upon  the  people,*  and  the  Declaration  of  Independence, 
which  changed  the  character  of  the  Revolutionary  War  from  a 
civil  to  a  public  war,  was  of  the  independence  of  each  state 
and  not  the  states  collectively.2  The  sovereign  prerogatives  of 
the  crown  devolved  upon  the  states,3  and  the  sovereignty  thus 
acquired  became  vested  in  the  people  of  the  states.4 

The  people  are  the  source  of  all  governmental  authority,5 
and  whatever  powers  the  states  possessed  before  the  adoption 
of  the  constitution  remain  the  same  except  so  far  as  they  may, 
by  the  action  of  the  people  themselves,  be  abridged  by  that  in- 
strument.6    In  their  desire  to  "form  a  more  perfect  union," 

1  Trustees  Dartmouth  College  v.  "Woodward,  4  Wheat.  651,  4  L.  ed. 
629;  Rhode  Island  v.  Massachusetts,  12i  Pet.  751,  9  L.  ed.  1233;  Bona- 
parte v.  Camden  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  1  Baldw.  220,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1617; 
Wheeler  v.  Smith,  9  How.  78,  13  L.  ed.  44. 

2  Ware  v.  Hylton,  3  Dall.  224,  225,  1  L.  ed.  568;  Mcllvaine  v.  Cox's 
Lessee,  2.  Cr.  280,  2  L.  ed.  279,  4  Cr.  212,  2  L.  ed.  598. 

3  Fountain  v.  Ravenel,  17  How.  384,  15  L.  ed.  80.   ^ 

4  Luther  v.  Borden,  7  How.  47,  12  L.  ed.  581.       \f 

5  Barnes  v.  District  of  Columbia,  91  U.  S.  546,  23  L.  ed.  440. 

6  Calder  v.  Bull,  3  Dall.  387,  1  L.  ed.  648;  Gibbons  v.  Ogden,  9 
Wheat.  202,  6  L.  ed.  23;  Barron  v.  Mayor  of  Baltimore,  7  Pet.  243, 
8  L.  ed.  672,  Texas  v.  White,  7  Wall.  725,  19  L.  ed.  227;  Collector 
v.  Day,  11  Wall.  124,  20  L.  ed.  122;  McPherson  v.  Blacker,  146  U.  S. 
25,  13  S.  Ct.  3,  36  L.  ed.  869. 


Am.  X  Reserved  Powers.  678 

the  people  conferred  certain  powers  upon  the  general  govern- 
ment they  created;  but  it  was  not  the  people  of  America,  but 
the  people  of  the  several  states,  from  whom  those  powers  pro- 
ceeded.7 

The  state  governments  are  governments  of  reserved  powers, 
and  the  United  States  government  is  one  of  delegated  powers.3 
The  several  articles  of  the  constitution  recognize  the  necessary 
existence,  and,  within  their  proper  sphere,  the  independent  au- 
thority of  the  states,  and  this  amendment  expressly  reserves  to 
them  all  the  powers  they  have  not  delegated  to  the  national 
government.9  The  United  States  government  is  one  of  enu- 
merated powers;  while  supreme  within  its  own  sphere,  it  is 
a  government  of  limited  jurisdiction  and  specific  functions, 
possessing  no  other  powers  but  such  as  are  given  to  it  expressly 
or  by  necessary  intendment  by  the  constituion.10 

The  word  "delegated"  is  not,  however,  qualified  by  the  word 
"expressly";  such  qualification  was  moved  and  rejected.11     No 

7  Sturges  v.  Crowninshield,  4  Wheat.  122,  4  L.  ed.  529. 

8  Houston  v.  Moore,  5  Wheat.  74,  5  L.  ed.  19;  McCulloch  v.  Mary- 
land, 4  Wheat.   316,  4  L.  ed.  579;   Gibbons  v.  Ogden,  9  Wheat.  202, 

6  L.  ed.  23;  Osborne  v.  United  States  Bank,  9  Wheat.  738,  6  L.  ed. 
204;  Martin  v.  Hunter,  1  Wheat.  326,  4  L.  ed.  97;  Brown  v.  Mary, 
land,  12  Wheat.  419,  6  L.  ed.  678;  Weston  v.  Charleston,  2  Pet.  449, 

7  L.  ed.  481;  Briscoe  v.  Bank  of  Kentucky,  11  Pet.  317,  9  L.  ed. 
709;  Dobbins  v.  Commissioners,  1&  Pet.  435,  10  L.  ed.  1022;  Hepburn 
v.  Griswold,  8  Wall.  611,  19  L.  ed.  513;  Collector  v.  Day,  11  Wall. 
113,  20  L.  ed.  122;  National  Bank  v.  Commonwealth,  9  Wall.  353, 
19  L.  ed.  701;  Inman  S.  S.  Co.  v.  Tinker,  94  U.  S.  238,  24  L.  ed.  118; 
United  States  v.  Cruikshank,  92  U.  S.  550,  23  L.  ed.  588. 

9  Lane  County  v.  Oregon,  7  Wall.  76,  19  L.  ed.  101. 

10  Pacific  Ins.  Co.  v.  Soule,  7  Wall.  444,  19  L.  ed.  95;  Martin  v. 
Hunter,  1  Wheat.  326,  4  L.  ed.  97;  McCulloch  v.  Maryland,  4  Wheat. 
406,  4  L.  ed.  579;  Hepburn  v.  Griswold,  8  Wall.  611,  19  L.  ed.  513; 
Collector  v.  Day,  11  Wall.  124,  20  L.  ed.  122;  United  States  v.  Har- 
ris, 106  U.  S.  629,  1  S.  Ct.  601,  27  L.  ed.  290;  Gilman  v.  Philadelphia, 
3  Wall.  725,  18  L.  ed.  96;  United  States  v.  Illinois  etc.  K.  E.  Co.,  154 
U.  S.  239,  14  S.  Ct.  1015,  38  L.  ed.  971. 

11  McCulloch  v.  Maryland,  4  Wheat.  316,  4  L.  ed.  579;  Martin  v. 
Hunter,  1  Wheat.  304,  4  L.  ed.  97;  Houston  v.  Moore,  5  Wheat.  1, 
5  L.  ed.  19;  Anderson  v.  Dunn,  6  Wheat.  226,  5  L.  ed.  242;  United 
States  v.  Bailey,  1  McLean,  234,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,495. 


679  Eesekved  Powers.  A.m.  X 

power  should  be  conceded  to  the  general  government  which 
cannot  be  legitimately  found  in  the  constitution,  but.  on  the 
other  hand,  none  should  be  withheld  which  has  been  declared 
necessary  to  the  execution  of  expressly  granted  powers  and 
to  the  fulfillment  of  clear  and  well-defined  duties.1-  Many 
powers  are  necessarily  implied  under  the  express  grants  of 
power  in  the  constitution.  "It  would  be  utopian  to  suppose 
that  government  can  exist  without  leaving  the  exercise  of  dis- 
cretion somewhere."13  But  every  valid  act  of  Congress  must 
find  in  the  constitution  some  warrant  for  its  passage.14  It  is 
not  only  the  right,  but  the  duty,  of  the  courts  to  determine 
whether  the  means  employed  by  Congress  have  any  relation  to 
the  powers  granted  by  the  constitution,  and  to  declare  acts  of 
Congress  void  when  they  are  repugnant  to  the  constitution;15 
the  judiciary  cannot,  by  enforcing  an  unconstitutional  law  as 
a  law,  supply  a  want  of  power  in  the  legislature.16 

The  constitutional  limitations  upon  state  power  are  founded 
upon  the  desire  to  protect  life  and  property  from  the  sudden 
and  strong  passions  to  which  men  are  exposed,  and  the  con- 
stitution contains  what  may  be  deemed  a  bill  of  rights  for  the 
people  of  the  states.17  The  framers  of  the  constitution  did  not 
intend  to  restrain  the  states  in  the  regulation  of  their  civil 
institutions  adopted  for  internal  government.18  The  police 
power  of  the  states  is  inherent  and  exclusive,  and  neither  sur- 
rendered to  the  general  government  nor  restrained  by  the  con- 
stitution.19    The  inhibitions  of  the  federal  constitution  are  not 

12  United  States  v.  Marigold,  9  How.  568,  13  L.  ed.  257. 

13  Anderson  v.  Dunn,  6  Wheat.  225,  5  L.  ed.  242. 

14  United  States  v.  Harris,  106  U.  S.  629,  1  S.  Ct.  601,  27  L.  ed. 
290;   Collector  v.  Day,  11  Wall.  124,  20  L.  ed.  122. 

is  Marbury  v.  Madison,  1  Cr.  176-180,  2  L.  ed.  60;  Cherokee  Nation 
v.  Kansas  Ky.,  135  U.  S.  657,  10  S.  Ct.  965,  34  L.  ed.  295;  Dewey  v. 
United  States,  178  U.  S.  521,  20  S.  Ct.  981,  44  L.  ed.  1170. 

16  O'Brien  v,  Wheelock,  184  U.  S.  489,  22  S.  Ct.  354,  46  L.  ed. 
636. 

17  Fletcher  v.  Peck,  6  Cr.  13S,  3  L.  ed.  162. 

18  Trustees  Dartmouth  College  v.  Woodward,  4  Wheat.  629,  4  L. 
ed.  629. 

19  New  York  v.  Miln,  11  Pet.  139,  9  L.  ed.  648;  Slaughter-houso 
Cases,  16  Wall.  63,  21  L.  ed.  394;   Kidd  v.  Pearson,  128   U.  S.  26,  "J 


Am.  X  Keseeved  Powers.  680 

violated  by  legitimate  laws  to  secure  public  safety,  health  and 
morals,20  and  the  federal  courts  cannot  interfere  with  the  pur- 
ported exercise  of  such  a  power  until  rights  secured  by  the 
federal  laws  or  constitution  are  infringed.21  Except  where  the 
federal  constitution  restricts,  the  only  security  against  unwise 
and  unjust  legislation  is  in  the  wisdom  and  justice  of  the  repre- 
sentative body;22  in  the  virtue  and  intelligence  of  the  people.23 


Concurrent  Powers. 


The  United  States  and  the  states  exercise  jurisdiction  within 
the  same  territorial  limits,  and  are  separate  and  independent 
sovereignties,  acting  separately  and  independently  within  their 
respective  spheres,  "as  if  a  line  of  division  was  traced  by  land- 
marks and  monuments  visible  to  the  eye/'24  The  constitution 
contemplates  independent  exercise,  by  nation  and  state,  sev- 
erally, of  their  constitutional  powers,25  but  prohibitions  on  the 
states  are  not  to  be  enlarged  by  construction,26  and  the  mere 
grant  of  a  power  to  Congress  does  not  necessarily  impiv  a  pro- 

S.  Ct.  6,  32  L.  ed.  346;  In  re  Eahrer,  140  U.  S.  554,  11  S.  Ct.  865,  35  L. 
ed.  572;  United  States  v.  E.  C.  Knight  Co.,  156  U.  S.  11,  15  S.  Ct. 
249,  39  L.  ed.  325. 

20  New  York  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Bristol,  151  U.  S.  567,  14  S.  Ct. 
437,  38  L.  ed.  269. 

21  L'Hote  v.  New  Orleans,  177  U.  S.  597,  20  S.  Ct.  788,  44  L.  ed. 
899. 

22  Providence  Bank  v.  Billings,  4  Pet.  563,  7  L.   ed.  939. 

23  Gilman  v.  Philadelphia,  3  Wall.  731,  18  L.  ed.  96. 

24  McCulloch  v.  Maryland,  4  Wheat.  316,  4  L.  ed.  579;  Gibbons 
v.  Ogden,  9  Wheat.  1,  6  L.  ed.  23;  Osborne  v.  United  States  Bank, 
9  Wheat.  738,  6  L.  ed.  204;  Brown  v.  Maryland,  12  Wheat.  410,  6  L. 
ed.  678;  Weston  v.  Charleston,  2  Pet.  449,  7  L.  ed.  481;  Dobbins  v. 
Commissioners,  16  Pet.  435,  10  L.  ed.  1022;  Collector  v.  Day,  11  Wall. 
113,  20  L.  ed.  122;  National  Bank  v.  Commonwealth,  9  Wall.  353, 
19  L.  ed.  701;  Pennoyer  v.  Neff,  95  U.  S.  722,  24  L.  ed.  565;  Sweatt 
v.  Boston  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  5  Bank.  Eeg.  248,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,694; 
Frasher  v.  State,  3  Tex.  App.  273;  Fifield  v.  Close,  15  Mich.  505; 
State  v.  Gorton,  32  Ind.  1;  State  v.  Gibson,  36  Ind.  389,  10  Am. 
Eep.  42;  People  v.  Brady,  40  Cal.  198. 

25  Pollock  v.  Farmers'  L.  etc.  Co.,  157  U.  S.  583,  15  S.  Ct.  673,  39 
L.  ed.  759. 

26  Anderson  v.  Baker,  23  Md.  531. 


681  Eeserved  Powers.  Am.  X 

hibition  on  the  states  to  exercise  the  power  until  Congress  as- 
sumes to  exercise  it.27  So  the  states  may  exercise  a  concurrent 
power  with  Congress,  except  where  the  power  is  lodged  ex- 
clusively in  the  United  States,  or  where  from  its  nature  it  is 
necessary  that  Congress  alone  shall  exercise  it,28  and  although 
the  subject  of  state  regulation  is  one  that  Congress  may  ab- 
solutely control,  yet  the  state's  action  must  he  respected  until 
Congress  intervenes.29  When,  however,  a  state  statute  invades 
the  domain  of  legislation  which  belongs  exclusively  to  Congress 
it  is  void,30  and  a  state  law  passed  in  the  exercise  of  powers 
reserved  to  the  state  is  void  when  in  conflict  with  an  act  of 
Congress  passed  in  the  regular  exercise  of  granted  powers.31 
But  in  any  case  the  repugnancy  of  the  state  act  to  the  consti- 
tution or  a  federal  law  must  be  such  that  they  cannot  stand 
together,  in  order  to  invalidate  the  state  act.32 

A  power  which  is  forbidden  to  the  states  is  not  necessarily 
in  the  federal  government,  but  if  that  which  is  essential  to 
government  is  forbidden  to  one,  the  prohibition  is  equivalent 
to  a  grant  to  the  other.33 

Residuary  Powers  in  General. 

The  residuary  powers  of  legislation  are  in  the  states  and  ex- 
tend to  all  persons  and  things  within  their  territorial  limits.34 

27  Sturges  v.  Crowninshield,  4  Wheat.  193-196,  4  L.  ed.  529;  New 
York  v.  Miln,  11  Pet.  146,  9  L.  ed.  648;  Southern  S.  S.  Co.  v.  Port 
Wardens,  6  Wall.  33,  18  L.  ed.  749;  Osborne  v.  Mobile,  16  Wall.  482, 
21  L.  ed.  470;  Missouri  etc.  Ky.  Co.  v.  Haber,  169  U.  S.  637,  18  S.  Ct. 
488,  42  L.  ed.  878. 

28  Ogden  v.  Saunders,  12  Wheat.  275,  6  L.  ed.  606;  Gilman  v. 
Philadelphia,  3  Wall.  730,  18  D.  ed.  96. 

29  Missouri  etc.  Ey.  v.  Haber,  169  U.  S.  630-635,  18  S.  Ct.  48S, 
42  L.  ed.  878. 

30  Henderson  v.  New  York,  P2  U.  S.  272,  23  L.  ed.  543. 

31  Sinnot   v.   Davenport,   22   How.   242,   16  L.   ed.   243. 

32  Sinnot  v.  Davenport,  22  How.  243,  16  L.  ed.  243;  Missouri  etc. 
Ey.  Co.  v.  Haber,  169  U.  S.  623,  18  S.  Ct.  488,  42  L.  ed.  878. 

33  Van  Husen  v.  Kanouse,   13  Mich.  303. 

34  Holmes  v.  Jennison,  14  Pet.  617,  10  L.  ed.  579;  United  States 
v.  Be  vans,  3  Wheat.  387,  4  L.  ed.  404;  Arndt  v.  Griggs,  134  U.  a 
323,  10  S.  Ct.  557,  33  L.  ed.  918. 


Am.  X  Reserved  Powers.  682 

The  several  states,  for  all  purposes  save  those  of  a  national 
character,  are  foreign  and  independent  of  each  other,35  and 
while  they  are  members  of  the  Union,  whose  constitution  is  su- 
preme,36 yet  their  legislatures  have  all  the  powers  delegated  to 
them  by  the  state  constitutions,  which  are  not  granted  to  Con- 
gress or  expressly  forbidden  by  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States.37  Among  these  powers  are  those  relating  to  internal 
police,38  the  power  to  regulate  transfers  of  property  within 
state  limits,39  and  declare  the  effect  and  dignity  of  individual 
titles  to  land,40  and  to  regulate  the  tenure  of  real  property, 
the  mode  of  acquisition,  rule  of  descent,  and  extent  of  testamen- 
tary disposition,41  to  regulate  the  privileges  and  immunities  of 
their  own  citizens,  provided  they  do  not  abridge  the  privi- 
leges or  immunities  belonging  to  citizens  of  the  United  States.42 
A  state  may  determine  the  status,  or  domestic  and  social  con- 
dition of  the  persons  domiciled  within  its  territory,43  and  the 
protection  of  citizens  in  their  religious  liberties  is  left  to  the 
state  constitutions  and  laws.44     The  power  to  regulate  suffrage 

35  Buckner  v.  Finley,  2  Pet.  586,  7  L.  ed.  528;  Bank  of  United 
States  v.  Daniel,  12  Pet.  33,  9  L.  ed.  989;  Bank  of  Augusta  v.  Earle, 
13  Pet.  520,  10  L.  ed.  274;  Dodge  v.  Woolsey,  18  How.  550,  15  L.  ed. 
401;  Mahon  v.  Justice,  127  U.  S.  706,  8  S.  Ct.  1204,  32  L.  ed.  283. 

36  Fletcher  v.  Peck,  6  Cr.  136,  3  L.  ed.  162. 

37  Calder  v.  Bull,  3  Dall.  386,  1  L.  ed.  648;  Commonwealth  v.  Kim- 
ball, 24  Pick.  359,  35  Am.  Dec.  356;  People  v.  Naglee,  1  Cal.  231,  52 
Am.  Dec.  312. 

38  Ante,  p.  437. 

39  Texas  v.  White,  7  Well.  732,  19  L.  ed.  227;  Harvey  v.  Ehode 
Island  L.  Works,  93  U.  S.  671,  23  L.  ed.  1003;  Pennoyer  v.  Neff,  95 
U.  S.  723,  24  L.  ed.  565;  Arndt  v.  Griggs,  134  U.  S.  321,  10  S.  Ct.  557, 
33  L.  ed.  918. 

40  Clark  v.  Smith,  13  Pet.  203,  10  L.  ed.  123. 

41  United  States  v.  Fox,  94  U.  S.  315,  24  L.  ed.  192;  Commonwealth 
v.  Kimball,  24  Pick.  359,  35  Am.  Dec.  326;  Frasher  v.  State,  3  Tex. 
App.  273. 

42  Presser  v.  Illinois,  116  U.  S.  266,  6  S.  Ct.  580,  29  L.  ed.  615. 

43  Strador  v.  Graham,  10  How.  82,  13  L.  ed.  337;  Plessy  v.  Fergu- 
son, 163  U.  S.  552,  16  S.  Ct.  1138,  41  L.  ed.  256;  Lemmon  v.  People, 
20  N.  Y.  621;  Hunt  v.  Hunt,  72  N.  Y.  217,  28  Am.  Kep.  136;  Wood- 
ward v.  Woodward,  87  Tenn.  648,  11  S.  W.  893. 

44  Permoli  v.  First  Municipality,  3  How.  589,  11  L.  ed.  739. 


683  Eeserved  Powers.  Am.  X 

belongs  exclusively  to  the  states,  and  Congress  cannot  interfere 
with  the  states  in  their  exercise  of  it.45 

The  power  to  direct  and  regulate  the  mode  of  selling  goods 
within  its  territory  belongs  to  a  state,  subject  only  to  the  re- 
strictions embraced  under  grants  of  power  to  Congress.46 

The  establishment  of  courts  of  justice,  appointment  of 
judges,  and  the  regulation  of  the  administration  of  justice 
within  the  states  are  left  to  the  state  legislatures.47  So  a  state 
may  regulate  the  forms  of  pleading  in  her  own  courts,  in  crim- 
inal as  well  as  civil  cases;48  the  entire  matter  of  procedure  and 
process  in  the  state  courts  is  within  state  control,  subject  only 
to  the  restriction  that  state  regulations  must  not  work  a  denial 
of  fundamental  rights  or  conflict  with  the  state  constitution.49 
There  is  nothing  in  the  federal  constitution  that  precludes  the 
exercise  of  judicial  functions  by  a  state  legislature.50 

Corporations  depend  for  their  powers  upon  the  will  of  the 
legislatures  of  the  states  creating  them.51  The  recognition  and 
regulation  of  foreign  corporations  is  a  matter  solely  for  the 
legislatures  of  the  states  in  which  such  corporations  seek  to  do 
business.52     A  state's  power  with  regard  to  foreign  corporations 

45  United  States  v.  Cruikshank,  92  U.  S.  556,  23  L.  ed.  588;  Sproule 
v.  Fredericks,  69  Miss.  898,  11  South.  472;  Huber  v.  Reily,  53  Pa. 
St.  112. 

46  Commonwealth  v.  Kimball,  24  Pick.  359,  35  Am.  Dec.  356. 

4"  Calder  v.  Bull,  3  Dall.  387,  1  L.  ed.  648;  Lapsley  v.  Brashears, 
4  Litt.  47. 

48  Kentucky  v.  Dennison,  24  How.  107,  16  L.  ed.  717. 

49  York  v.  Texas,  137  U.  S.  20,  11  S.  Ct.  9,  34  L.  ed.  604;  Brown  v. 
New  Jersey,  175  U.  S.  175,  20  S.  Ct.  77,  44  L.  ed.  119. 

so  Calder  v.  Bull,  3  Dall.  392,  1  L.  ed.  648;  Satterlee  v.  Mathewson, 
2  Pet.  380,  7  L.  ed.  458;  Merrill  v.  Sherburne,  1  N.  H.  209,  8  Am. 
Dec.  55;  Dash  v.  Van  Kleek,  7  Johns.  499,  5  Am.  Dec.  305;  Burch  v. 
Newbury,  10  N.  Y.  390. 

51  Bank  of  Augusta  v.  Earle,  13  Pet.  587,  10  L.  ed.  274;  Railroad 
Co.  v.  Koontz,  104  U.  S.  11,  26  L.  ed.  643;  Oregon  Ry.  etc.  Co.  v.  Ore- 
gonian  Ry.  Co.,  130  IT.  S.  20,  9  S.  Ct.  409,  32  L.  ed.  837;  United 
States  v.  Keokuk,  6  Wall.  516,  18  L.  ed.  933;  Fertilizing  Co.  v.  Hyie 
Park,  97  U.  S.  667,  24  L.  ed.  1036. 

52  Bank  of  Augusta  v.  Earle,  13  Pet.  591,  10  L.  ed.  274;  Ducat 
v.  Chicago,  10  Wall.  415,  19  L.  ed.  972;  Doyle  v.  Continental  Ins.  Co., 


Am.  X  Eeserved  Powers.  684 

is  as  broad  as  its  power  over  domestic  corporations,53  subject 
only  to  the  expressed  restrictions  of  the  federal  constitution.54 

The  taxing  power  of  a  state  is  coextensive  with  its  sover- 
eignty over  persons  and  property  within  its  territory;55  it  is 
as  broad  as  its  territorial  limits  and  extends  to  everything 
therein  except  what  are  properly  denominated  the  instruments 
or  means  of  the  federal  government.56 

A  state  may  bind  itself  by  contract  to  the  same  extent  as  an 
individual,  unless  restrained  by  some  constitutional  inhibitions 
as  to  certain  classes  of  contracts,57  and  may  hold  property  as  an 
individual.58  'Measures  calculated  to  produce  public  benefits 
through  the  medium  of  corporations  are  within  the  reserved 
powers  of  the  states.59 

Right  to  Secede  not  Reserved. 

The  right  of  secession  is  not  reserved  by  this  amendment,  and 

94  U.  S.  543,  24  L.  ed.  148;  St.  Clair  v.  Cox,  106  U.  S.  356,  1  S.  Ct. 
3:4,  27  Lj  ed.  222;  Allgeyer  v.  Louisiana,  165  U.  S.  583,  17  S.  Ct. 

427,  41  L.  ed.  832. 

53  Orient  Ins.  Co.  v.  Daggs,  172  U.  S.  566,  19  S.  Ct.  281,  43  L.  ed. 
552;  Dayton  Coal  Co.  v.  Barton,  183  U.  S.  24,  22  S.  Ct.  5,  46  L.  ed. 
61;  New  York  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Cravens,  178  U.  S.  401,  20  S.  Ct.  962, 
44  L.  ed.  1116. 

54  Philadelphia  etc.  Assn.  v.  New  York,  119  U.  S.  118,  7  S.  Ct. 
108,  30  L.  ed.  342;  Barron  v.  Burnside,  121  U.  S.  200,  7  S.  Ct.  931, 
30  L.  ed.  915. 

55  Brown  v.  Maryland,  12  Wheat.  448,  6  L.  ed.  678;  Nevada  Bank 
v.  Sedgwick,  104  U.  S.  Ill,  26  L.  ed.  703;  Hagar  v.  Reclamation  Dist., 
Ill  U.  S.  709,  4  S.  Ct.  663,  28  L.  ed.  560;  Marye  v.  Baltimore  etc. 
E.  R.  Co.,  127  U.  S.  123,  8  S.  Ct.  1037,  32  L.  ed.  94;  Dewey  v.  De9 
Moines,  173  TJ.  S.  204,  19  S.  Ct.  739,  43  L.  ed.  665. 

56  Society  for  Savings  v.  Coite,  6  Wall.  604,  18  L.  ed.  897;  Ward 
v.  Maryland,  12  Wall.  426,  20  L.  ed.  449. 

57  Piqua  Bank  v.  Knoop,  16  How.  369,  14  L.  ed.  977;  Ohio  T.  Co. 
v.  Debolt,  16  How.  416,  14  L.  ed.  997;  Houston  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Texas, 
177  U.  S.  97,  20  S.  Ct.  545,  44  L.  ed.  673. 

58  Bank  of  United  States  v.  Planters'  Bank,  9  Wheat.  907,  6  L. 
ed.  244;  Bank  of  Kentucky  v.  Wister,  2  Pet.  323,  7  L.  ed.  437;  Bris- 
coe v.  Bank  of  Kentucky,  11  Pet.  325,  9  L.  ed.  709;  Pennsylvania  v. 
Wheeling  etc.  Bridge  Co.,  13  How.  560,  14  L.  ed.  249. 

59  Willson  v.  Blackbird  Creek  Marsh  Co.,  2  Pet.  245,  7  L.  ed.  412; 
Stockton  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Stockton,  41  Cal.  189. 


685  Eeserved  Powers.  Am.  X 

any  statute  or  ordinance  to  that  effect  is  a  nullity.60  The 
Union  is  perpetual  and  indissoluble,61  and  a  state  con- 
tinues to  be  a  member  thereof  notwithstanding  any  ordi- 
nance of  secession.62  A  state  can  have  no  political  existence 
outside  of  and  independent  of  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States,63  and  an  attempt  to  separate  from  the  Union  does  not 
destroy  its  identity,  nor  free  it  from  the  binding  force  of  that 
constitution,64  nor  release  citizens  from  their  obligation  of  loy- 
alty to  the  general  government.65  The  rights  of  a  rebellious 
state  are  merely  suspended,  not  destroyed,66  and  the  legislature 
of  a  state  attempting  secession  merely  ceases  to  represent  the 
state  as  a  constitutional  member  of  the  federal  Union.67  The 
confederation  of  the  southern  states  was  in  direct  violation  of 
the  constitution,68  and  while  the  acts  of  the  legislatures  of  those 
states  necessary  for  the  protection  of  persons  and  property  were 
upheld,69  yet  the  so-called  Confederate  government  and  the 
states  composing  that  government  were  not  de  facto  govern- 
ments, in  such  a  sense  as  to  give  legal  efficacy  to  their  acts.70 

60  Keith  v.  Clark,  97  U.  S.  461,  24  L.  ed.  1071;  White  v.  Hart,  13 
Wall.  651,  20  L.  ed.  685;  White  v.  Cannon,  6  Wall.  443,  18  L.  ed.  923; 
Williams  v.  Bruffy,  96  U.  S.  188,  24  L.  ed.  716;  Texas  v.  White,  7 
Wall.  733,  19  L.  ed.  227;  Mauran  v.  Alliance  Ins.  Co.,  6  Wall.  13,  18 
L.  ed.  836. 

61  Texas  v.  White,  7  Wall.  724,  19  L.  ed.  227. 

62  White  v.  Hart,  13  Wall.  646,  20  L.  ed.  685;  Keith  v.  Clark,  97 
IT.  S.  461,  24  L.  ed.  1071;  Sequestration  Cases,  30  Tex.  688,  98  Am. 
Dec.  494;  Chancely  v.  Bailey,  37  Ga.  532,  95  Am.  Dec.  350;  Pennywic 
v.  Foote,  27  Ohio  St.  600,  22  Am.  Rep.  340;  Hood  v.  Maxwell,  1  W. 
Va.  219. 

63  Penn  v.  Tollison,  2-6  Ark.  545. 

64  Keith  v.  Clark,  97  U.  S.  451,  24  L.  ed.  1071. 

65  United  States  v.  Catheart,  1  Bond,  556,  Fed.  Ca3.  No.  14,756. 

66  White  v.  Hart,  13  Wall.  651,  20  L.  ed.  685. 

67  Taylor  v.  Thomas,  22  Wall.  489,  22  L.  ed.  789. 

68  Florida  v.  Georgia,  17  How.  478,  15  L.  ed.  181. 

69  Texas  v.  White,  7  Wall.  733,  19  L.  ed.  227;  Thomas  v.  Rich- 
mond, 12  Wall.  357,  20  L.  ed.  453;  Horn  v.  Lockhardt,  17  Wall.  580, 
21  L.  ed.  657;  Sprott  v.  United  States,  20  Wall.  464,  22  L.  ed.  371. 

70  Hickman  v.  Jones,  9  Wall.  200,  19  L.  ed.  515;  Williams  v. 
Bruffy,  96  U.  S.  182,  24  L.  ed.  716;  Chisholm  v.  Coleman,  43  Ala.  204. 


Am.  XI  Judicial  Power  Limited.  686 


ARTICLE  XI. 

LIMITATION  ON  JUDICIAL  POWERS. 

Tho  judicial  power  of  the  United  States  shall  not  he 
construed  to  extend  to  any  suit  in  law  or  equity  com- 
menced or  prosecuted  against  one  of  the  United  States 
by  citizens  of  another  State,  or  by  citizens  or  subjects  of 
any  foreign  State. 

Amendment  proposed  5th  March,  1794;  ratified  8th  January,  1793. 

Scope  of  Amendment. 

Under  the  constitution  as  originally  adopted  a  state  was  su- 
able in  the  supreme  court  by  an  individual  citizen  of  another 
state,1  but  since  the  adoption  of  the  Eleventh  Amendment  no 
jurisdiction  can  be  exercised  in  any  case,  past,  present,  or  fu- 
ture, in  which  a  state  was  or  is  sued  by  citizens  of  another 
state  or  by  citizens  or  subjects  of  any  foreign  state;2  the  amend- 
ment superseded  all  pending  suits  besides  precluding  the  in- 
stitution of  new  suits.3  A  constitutional  amendment  may  con- 
trol a  provision  authorizing  the  exercise  of  a  power  by  declar- 
ing that  it  shall  not  give  such  power4  and  the  phraseology  here 
employed — that  the  judicial  power  "shall  not  be  construed  to 
extend"  to  suits  against  a  state — imports  an  absolute  prohibi- 
tion.5 At  the  same  time,  however,  it  only  restrains  the  con- 
struction which  might  otherwise  be  given  to  the  constitution, 
and  if  a  case  is  not  one  of  which  the  supreme  court  might  take 
original  jurisdiction,  it  is  not  within  the  prohibition.6     It  ap- 

1  Chisholm  v.  Georgia,  2  Dall.  450,  1  L.  ed.  440. 

2  Hollingsworth  v.  Virginia,  3  Dall.  382,  1  L.  ed.  644;  Cohen  v. 
Virginia,    6  Wheat.   294,   5   L.   ed.   257. 

3  Hans  v.  Louisiana,  134  U.  S.  11,  10  S.  Ct.  506,  33  L.  ed.  842. 

4  Johnson  v.  Tompkins,  1  Baldw.  598,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7416. 
6  Cohen  v.  Virginia,  6   Wheat.  405,  5  L.  ed.  257. 

6  Bank  of  United  States  v.  Planters'  Bank,  9  Wheat.  906,  6  L. 
ed.  244. 


687  Judicial  Power  Limited.  Am.  XI 

plies  only  to  original  suits,  and  not  to  appeals  or  writs  of  error  ;T 
nor  does  it  extend  to  suits  of  admiralty  or  maritime  jurisdic- 
tion.8 

It  is  a  universal  principle,  that  where  jurisdiction  depends 
upon  the  party,  it  is  the  party  named  in  the  record ;  accordingly, 
the  provision  would  be,  it  would  seem,  limited  to  suits  where 
a  state  is  a  party  on  the  record,9  but  the  amendment  was 
adopted  for  the  protection  of  the  states,  and  to  construe  it  that 
a  state's  property  might  be  alienated  in  a  suit  against  an  officer 
would  deprive  the  state  of  its  day  in  court.10  Accordingly,  it 
is  now  settled  that  the  question  whether  a  suit  is  within  the 
prohibition  is  not  always  to  be  determined  by  reference  to  the 
nominal  parties  to  the  record,11  and,  while  the  provision  is  to 
be  substantially  applied  in  the  furtherance  of  its  intention,12 
the  court  will  look  beyond  the  record  to  determine  the  real 
parties  to  the  suit.13  So  where  a  suit  is  against  the  governor 
of  a  state  as  such  and  the  claim  made  upon  him  is  entirely 
in  his  official  character,  the  state  itself  may  be  deemed  to  be 
a  party,14  and  a  proceeding  by  injunction  to  compel  the  specific 
performance  of  a  state's  contract  by  forbidding  all  acts  which 
constitute  breaches  thereof  is  a  suit  against  the  state,  even 
though  it  be  not  nominally  a  party  to  the  record.15  So,  also, 
as  to  a  suit  against  a  state  treasurer  to  compel  him  to  refund 

7  Cohen  v.  Virginia,  6  Wheat.  405,  5  L.  ed.  257. 

8  Ex  parte  Madrazo,  7  Pet.  627,  8  L.  ed.  808;  Olmstead's  Case, 
Bright,  9. 

9  Osborne  v.  United  States  Bank,  9  Wheat.  738,  6  L.  ed.  20-1; 
Governor  of  Georgia  v.  Madrazo,  1  Pet.  123,  7  L.  ed.  73;  Louisville 
etc.  E.  R.  Co.  v.  Letson,  2  How.  551,  11  L.  ed.  353. 

io  Preston  v.  Walsh,  10  Fed.  1015;  Chaff  raix  v.  Board  of  Liquida- 
tion, 11  Fed.  638. 

11  Pennoyer  v.  McConnaughy,  140  U.  S.  12,  11  S.  Ct.  699,  35  L. 
ed.  363. 

12  Poindexter  v.  Greenhow,  114  U.  S.  2S7,  5  S.  Ct.  903,  24  L.  ed. 
185. 

13  Pennoyer  v.  McConnaughy,  140  U.  S.  12,  11  S.  Ct.  699,  35  L.  ed. 
363. 

14  Governor  of  Georgia  v.  Madrazo,  1  Pet.  123,  7  L.  ed.  73. 

15  In  re  Ayers,  123  U.  S.  503,  8  S.  Ct.  164,  31  L.  ed.  216. 


Am.  XI  Judicial  Power  Limited.  688 

money  adjudged  to  have  been  taken  under  an  illegal  assess- 
ment.16 

The  immunity  of  the  states  from  suit  secured  by  the  Eleventh 
Amendment  includes  not  only  direct  actions  for  damages  for 
breach  of  contract  brought  against  a  state  by  name,  but  all 
other  actions  or  suits  against  it,  whether  at  law  or  in  equity,17 
and  the  court  cannot  proceed  to  a  determination  of  a  suit 
wherein  a  state  is  an  indispensable  party  without  its  pres- 
ence and  consent  to  be  sued;18  the  immunity  is  absolute  al- 
though the  sole  object  of  a  suit  may  be  to  bring  the  state 
within  the  prohibition  against  laws  impairing  the  obligation 
of  contracts.19  A  federal  court  has  no  jurisdiction  of  a  cross- 
bill filed  by  a  person  intervening  in  a  suit  wherein  a  state 
is  a  party  plaintiff.20 

When  Inapplicable. 


The  amendment  provides,  however,  that  no  suit  shall  be  com- 
menced or  prosecuted  against  a  state  and  precludes  such  suits 
only,21  and  if  a  state  is  not  necessarily  a  defendant,  the  pro- 
hibition is  inapplicable,  notwithstanding  the  state's  interests 
may  be  incidentally  affected.22  So  the  mere  suggestion  that  a 
state  is  a  necessary  party,  without  averment  or  proof,  is  insuf- 
ficient to  mist  jurisdiction,23  and  where,  after  the  suggestion  of 
a  state's  title  to  land  in  the  possession  of  an  individual,  the 

ig  Smith  v.  Beeves,  178  TJ.  S.  439,  20  S.  Ct.  919,  44  L.  ed.  1140. 

17  In  re  Ayers,  123  U.  S.  502,  8  S.  Ct.  164,  31  L.  ed.  216. 

18  New  Hampshire  v.  Louisiana,  108  TJ.  S.  85,  2  S.  Ct.  176,  27 
L.  ed.  656;  Hagood  v.  Southern,  117  TJ.  S.  71,  6  S.  Ct.  608,  29  L.  ed. 
805. 

19  Pennoyer  v.  McConnaughy.  140  TJ.  S.  9,  11  S.  Ct.  699,  35  L. 
ed.  363. 

20  Bank  of  Washington  v.  Arkansas,  20  How.  532,  15  L.  ed.  993. 

21  United  States  v.  Peters,  5  Cr.  139,  3  L.  ed.  53;  Cohen  v.  Vir- 
ginia, 6  Wheat.  264,  5  L.  ed.  257.  And  see  Osborne  v.  United  States 
Bank,  9  Wheat.  738,  6  L.  ed.  204. 

22  Fowler  v.  Lindsay,  3  Dall.  412,  1  L.  ed.  658;  United  States  v. 
Peters,  5  Cr.  139,  3  L.  ed.  53;  Louisville  By.  Co.  v.  Letson,  2  How. 
550,  11  L.  ed.  353;  Howell  v.  Miller,  91  Fed.  135. 

23  South  Carolina  v.  Wesley,  155  U.  S.  544,  15  S.  Ct.  231,  39  L.  ed. 
254. 


689  Judicial  Power  Limited.  Am.  XI 

court  decides  that  the  state  has  no  title,  it  cannot  resist  legal 
process  in  the  case.?4  The  mere  averment  of  a  defendant  that 
he  holds  as  the  representative  of  a  state  is  insufficient  to  deprive 
a  federal  court  of  jurisdiction.25 

The  fact  that  a  state  is  a  member  of  a  corporation  does  not 
invest  the  corporation  with  any  of  the  state's  sovereignty  so  as 
to  exempt  it  from  suit  in  the  federal  courts,20  and  this  is  true, 
though  the  state  be  the  sole  stockholder.27  A  state,  by  becom- 
ing interested  in  a  corporation,  lays  down  its  sovereignty  so 
far  as  respects  the  transactions  of  the  corporation,28  and  to  that 
extent  is  deemed  to  waive  its  nonsuability.29 

The  provision  restricts  jurisdiction  only  in  suits  against 
states;  accordingly  where  counties  are,  under  a  state  constitu- 
tion, suable  as  municipal  corporations,  the  federal  courts  have 
jurisdiction  of  suits  against  them,30  and  it  seems  that  a  state's 
waiver  of  its  exemption  from  suit  in  any  court  of  a  certain 
county  would  include  a  federal  court  located  in  that  county.31 

24  United  States  v.  Peters,  5  Cr.  115,  3  L.  ed.  53;  Osborne  v.  United 
States  Bank,  9  Wheat.  738,  6  L.  ed.  204. 

25  Tindal  v.  Wesley,  167  U.  S.  214,  17  S.  Ct.  774,  42  L.  ed.  137. 

26  Bank  of  United  States  v.  Planters'  Bank,  9  Wheat.  904,  6  L. 
ed.  244;  Louisville  Ky.  Co.  v.  Letson,  2  How.  550,  11  L.  ed.  353. 

27  Bank  of  Kentucky  v.  Wister,  2  Pet.  323,  7  L.  ed.  437,  3  Pet. 
431,  7  L.  ed.  731. 

28  Briscoe  v.  Bank  of  Kentucky,  11  Pet.  325,  9  L.  ed.  709;  Curran 
v.  Arkansas,  15  How.  309,  14  L.  ed.  705;  Southern  Ey.  Co.  v.  N.  C. 
K.  Co.,  81  Fed.  600. 

29  Bank  of  Kentucky  v.  Wister,  2  Pet.  323,  7  L.  ed.  437. 

30  Lincoln  Co.  v.  Liming,  133  U.  S.  898,  10  S.  Ct.  363,  33  L.  ed.  766. 
3i   Eeagan  v.  Farmers'  Loan  etc.  Co.,  154  U.  S.  392,  14  S.  Ct.  1062, 

38  L.  ed.  1014. 

Notes  oni  Constitution— 44 


Am.  XII  Presidential  Electors.  690 


ARTICLE  XII. 

ELECTION  OF  PKESIDENT  AND  VICE-PRESIDENT. 

The  Electors  shall  meet  in  their  respective  States,  and 
vote  by  ballot  for  President  and  Vice-President,  one  of 
whom,  at  least,  shall  not  be  an  inhabitant  of  the  same 
State  with  themselves;  they  shall  name  in  their  ballots 
the  person  voted  for  as  President,  and  in  distinct  ballots 
the  person  voted  for  as  Vice-President,  and  they  shall 
make  distinct  lists  of  all  persons  voted  for  as  President, 
and  of  all  persons  voted  for  as  Vice-President,  and  of 
the  number  of  votes  for  each,  which  lists  they  shall  sign 
and  certify,  and  transmit  sealed  to  the  seat  of  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States,  directed  to  the  President 
of  the  Senate; — The  President  of  the  Senate  shall,  in  the 
presence  of  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives, 
open  all  the  certificates,  and  the  votes  shall  then  be 
counted; — The  person  having  the  greatest  number  of 
votes  for  President  shall  be  the  President,  if  such  num- 
ber be  a  majority  of  the  whole  number  of  Electors  ap- 
pointed ;  and  if  no  person  have  such  majority,  then  from 
the  persons  having  the  highest  numbers,  not  exceeding 
three  on  the  list  of  those  voted  for  as  President,  the 
House  of  Representatives  shall  choose  immediately,  by 
ballot,  the  President.  But  in  choosing  the  President, 
the  votes  shall  be  taken  by  States,  the  representation 
from  each  State  having  one  vote;  a  quorum  for  this  pur- 
pose shall  consist  of  a  member  or  members  from  two- 
thirds  of  the  States,  and  a  majority  of  all  the  States 
shall  be  necessary  to  a  choice.  And  if  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives shnll  not  choose  a  President  whenever  the 


091  Presidential  Electors.  Am.  XII 

right  of  choice  rfhall  devolve  upon  them,  before  the 
fourth  day  of  March  next  following,  then  the  Vice-Presi- 
dent shall  act  as  President,  as  in  the  case  of  the  death 
or  other  constitutional  disability  of  the  President. 

The  person  having  the  greatest  number  of  votes  as 
Vice-President  shall  be  the  Vice-President,  if  such  num- 
ber be  a  majority  of  the  whole  number  of  electors  ap- 
pointed ;  and  if  no  person  have  a  majority,  then  from  the 
two  highest  numbers  on  the  list,  the  Senate  shall  chose 
the  Vice-President ;  a  quorum  for  the  purpose  shall  con- 
sist of  two-thirds  of  the  whole  number  of  Senators,  and 
a  majority  of  the  whole  number  shall  be  necessary  to  a 
choice. 

But  no  person  constitutionally  ineligible  to  the  office 
of  President  shall  be  eligible  to  that  of  Vice-President 
of  the  United  States. 

Amendment,  proposed  12th  December,  1803;  ratified  25th  Septem- 
ber, 1804. 

The  appointment  and  mode  of  appointment  of  electors  be- 
long exclusively  to  the  states;  but  the  time  of  choosing  them, 
and  the  day  upon  which  they  are  to  give  their  votes  is  left  to 
Congress.  If  a  state  law  fixes  a  date  for  the  meeting  of  presi- 
dential electors  different  from  that  prescribed  by  act  of  Con- 
gress, if  such  provision  is  separable  from  the  others  it  may  be 
rejected,  and  the  law  remain    otherwise   complete  and    valid.1 

Presidential  electors  are  not  officers  or  agents  of  the  United 
States.2 

1  McPherson  v.  Blacker,  146  U.  S.  35-41,  13  S.  Ct.  3,  36  L.  ed.  869. 

2  In  re  Green,  134  U.  S.  379,  10  S.  Ct.  586,  33  L.  ed.  951. 


Am.  XIII,  §  1  Slavery  Prohibited.  692 


ARTICLE  XIII. 

SECTION  I. 

SLAVERY  PROHIBITED. 

Neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude,  except  as 
a  punishment  for  crime  whereof  the  party  shall  have 
been  duly  convicted,  shall  exist  within  the  United  States, 
or  any  place  subject  to  their  jurisdiction. 

The  object  of  this  provision  was  to  deprive  both  Congress 
and  the  several  states  of  the  power  to  reduce  any  persons  to  a 
condition  of  slavery  or  involuntary  servitude,  except  as  a  pun- 
ishment for  crime.1  The  term  "involuntary  servitude"  is  more 
comprehensive  than  slavery,  and  while  designed  primarily  to 
free  the  negro,  the  amendment  comprehends  and  forbids  also 
peonage,  or  the  Chinese  coolie  system.2  The  servitude  prohib- 
ited is  personal  servitude;  the  use  of  the  word  "involuntary"' 
conclusively  shows  that  such  was  the  intention.3  The  amend- 
ment is  a  positive  declaration  that  slavery  shall  not  exist.4 
An  indenture  of  apprenticeship  in  violation  of  state  laws  is  an 
involuntary  servitude  within  this  clause;5  and  an  act  provid- 
ing that  vagrants  shall  be  hired  out  to  the  highest  bidder  has 
been  declared  to  be  in  conflict  with  this  amendment.6 

It  was  not  intended  by  this  prohibition  to  give  positive  re- 
lief to  persons  unlawfully  deprived  of  their  liberty;  its  purpose 

1  People  v.  Washington,  36   Cal.  658. 

2  Slaughter-house  Cases,  16  Wall.  69,  21  L.  ed.  394;  In  re  Turner, 
1  Abb.  U.  S.  84,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,247;  In  re  Thompson,  117  Mo.  90, 
38  Am.  St.  Eep.  642,  22  S.  W.  865.  And  see  United  States  v.  Wong 
Kim  Ark,  169  U.  S.  677,  18  S.  Ct.  467,  42  L.  ed.  890. 

3  Slaughter-house  Cases,  16  Wall.  69,  21  L.  ed.  394;  In  re  Turner, 
1  Abb.  U.  S.  84,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,247. 

4  United  States  v.  Cruikshank,  92  U.  S.  543,  23  L.  ed.  588. 

5  In  re  Turner,  1  Abb.  U.  S.  184,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,247. 

6  In  re  Thompson,  117  Mo.  90,  38  Am.  St.  Rep.  642,  22  S.  W.  865. 


693  Slavery  Prohibited.  Am.  XIII,  §  1 

is  satisfied  when  such  restraint  is  rendered  unlawful.7  The 
effect  of  emancipation  was  to  make  slaves  freemen,8  and  the 
utmost  effect  of  this  amendment  is  to  declare  the  colored  to 
be  as  free  as  the  white  race — it  gives  the  colored  race  no  more 
than  freedom.9  It  extends  only  to  slavery  and  its  incidents, 
and  not  to  the  protection  of  privileges.10  Accordingly  there 
can  be  no  constitutional  objection  to  a  state  law  requiring  rail- 
road companies  to  provide  separate  accommodations  for  whites 
and  negroes.11 

Contracts  relating  to  slaves,  valid  when  entered  into,  were 
not  affected  by  the  Thirteenth  Amendment,12  and  so  notes  and 
mortgages  given  to  secure  the  payment  of  the  purchase  price 
of  slaves  were  enforceable  notwithstanding  the  abolition  of 
slavery.13 

7  People  v.  Brady,  40  Cal.  198. 

8  Texas  v.  White,  7  Wall.  728,  19  L.  ed.  227. 

9  Bowlin  v.  Commonwealth,  2  Bush,  5.  And  see  United  States  v. 
Ehodes,  1  Abb.  IT.  S.  28,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,151. 

io  Civil  Eights  Cases,  109  U.  S.  25,  3  S.  Ct.  18,  27  L.  ed.  835. 

11  Plessy  v.  Ferguson,  163  U.  &  542,  16  S.  Ct.  1140,  41  L.  ed.  256; 
affirming  Ex  parte  Plessy,  45  La.  Ann.  87,  11  South.  948,  18  L.  E.  A. 
639;  Anderson  v.  Louisville  etc.  Ey.  Co.,  62  Fed.  48. 

12  Osborn  v.  Nicholson,  13  Wall.  662,  20  L.  ed.  689;  White  v.  Hart, 
13  Wall.  646,  20  L.  ed.  685;  Boyce  v.  Tabb,  18  Wall.  548,  21  L.  ed. 
757;  McElvain  v.  (Mudd,  44  Ala.  48,  4  Am.  Eep.  106;  Eoundtree  v. 
Baker,  52  111.  241,  4  Am.  Eep.  597. 

13  Holmes  v.  Sevier,  154  U.  S.  583,  14  S.  Ct.  1203,  20  L.  ed.  876; 
Eichardson  v.  Thomas,  28  Ark.  389;  Blease  v.  Pratt,  3  S.  C.  514; 
Henderlite  v.   Thurman,  22  Gratt.   480,   12   Am.   Eep.   536. 


Am.  XIII,  §  2  Slavery  Prohibited.  G94 


SECTION  2. 
Congress  shall  have  power  to  enforce  this  article  by 
appropriate  legislation. 

Amendment,  pioposed  1st  February,  1865;  declared  ratified,  18th 
December,  1865. 

This  clause  gives  to  Congress  the  power  to  protect  all  per- 
sons within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States  from  being 
in  any  way  subjected  to  slavery  or  involuntary  servitude,  except 
as  a  punishment  for  crime.1  Legislation  which  practically 
tends  to  secure  the  full  enjoyment  of  personal  freedom  is  "ap- 
propriate;"2 e.  g.,  a  law  prohibiting  involuntary  servitude  in 
the  form  of  peonage.2* 

The  clause  authorizes  Congress  to  pass  such  laws  as  are  ap- 
propriate, but  not  to  annul  state  laws  or  control  their  operation.'5 
The  "power  to  enforce  this  article  by  appropriate  legislation" 
imports  nothing  more  than  the  power  to  uphold  the  emancipat- 
ing section,  and  prevent  a  violation  of  the  liberty  of  the  en- 
franchised race.4  Accordingly,  Congress  has  no  power  to  en- 
act laws  prohibiting  the  denial  of  equal  accommodations  in  inns, 
theaters,  and  hotels,  on  account  of  race  or  color.4 a  The  power 
to  pass  laws  for  the  punishment  of  ordinary  crimes  and  of- 
fenses belongs  exclusively  to  the  states,5  but  Congress  may  pass 
an  act  removing  the  disabilities  of  negroes  to  sue  or  to  testify,6 

1  United  States  v.  Harris,  106  U.  S.  629,  1  S.  Ct.  601,  27  L.  ed. 
290. 

2  People  v.  Washington,  36  Cal.  658. 
2a  In  re  Lewis,  114  Fed.  963. 

3  People  v.  Brady,  40  Cal.  198, 

4  Bowlin  v.  Commonwealth,  2  Bush,  5. 

4a  Civil  Eights  Cases,  109  U.  S.  25,  3  S.  Ct.  18,  27  L.  ed.  835. 

5  United  States  v.  Harris,  106  U.  S.  629,  1  S.  Ct.  601,  27  L.  ed. 
290;  United  States  v.  Cruikshank,  92  U.  S.  543,  23  L.  ed.  588. 

6  Handy  v.  Clark,  4  Houst.  6;  State  v.  Hash,  1  Houst.  Del.  Crim. 
271. 


695  Slavery  Prohibited.         '    Am.  XIII,  §  2 

and  a  law  which  permits  only  the  same  class  of  persons  to  tes- 
tify against  a  negro  as  are  allowed  to  testify  against  a  white 
man,  where  personal  liberty  is  concerned,  tends  to  enforce  this 
amendment  and  is  valid.7 

7  United  States  v.  Ehodes,  1  Abb.  U.  S.  34,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,151; 
People  v.  Washington,  36  Cal.  658.  But  see  Bowlin.  v.  Common- 
wealth, 2  Bush,  5. 


Am.  XIV,  §  1  Citizenship.  696 


ARTICLE  XIV. 

CITIZENSHIP,  REPRESENTATION,  AND  PUBLIC  DEBT. 

SECTION  1. 
WHO  AEE  CITIZENS — RIGHTS  OF. 

All  persons  born  or  naturalized  in  the  United  States, 
and  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  thereof,  are  citizens  of 
the  United  States  and  of  the  State  wherein  they  reside. 
No  State  shall  make  or  enforce  any  law  which  shall 
abridge  the  privileges  or  immunities  of  citizens  of  the 
United  States;  nor  shall  any  State  deprive  any  person 
of  life,  liberty,  or  property  without  due  process  of  law ; 
nor  deny  to  any  person  within  its  jurisdiction  the  equal 
protection  of  the  laws. 

Object  and  Scope  of  the  Amendment. 

The  opening  sentence  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  is  af- 
firmative and  declaratory,  and  was  intended  to  allay  doubts 
and  settle  controversies  which  had  arisen.1  The  amendment 
conferred  no  new  rights,  but  merely  extended  the  protection  of 
the  federal  constitution  over  the  rights  of  life,  liberty  and  prop- 
erty that  previously  existed  under  all  state  constitutions.2  Arti- 
cle IV,  section  2,  and  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  are  both  di- 
rected against  state  action,  their  object  being  to  place  citi- 
zens of  each  state  on  the  same  footing  as  citizens  of  the  other 
states.3 

This  amendment  is  a  restriction  on  the  states  as  distinguished 
from  the  restrictions  placed  on  the  general  government  by  thp 

1  United   States  v.  Wong  Kim  Ark,  169  U.  S.   666,  18  S.  Ct.  450, 
42  L.  ed.  890. 

2  Mobile  etc.  R.  R.  v.  Tennessee,  153  U.  S.  506,  14  S.  Ct.  968,  38 
L.  ed.  793. 

3  United  States  v.  Harris,  106  U.  S.  643,  1  S.  Ct.  601,  27  L.  ed.  290. 


G97  Citizenship.  Am.  XIV,  §  1 

Fifth  Amendment.4  It  limits  the  exercise  of  the  powers  of  the 
state  with  reference  to  the  individual  or  his  property,5  and  it 
applies  not  only  to  the  state  specifically  but  to  all  its  instru- 
mentalities and  agencies,  to  its  executive,  legislative  and  judi- 
cial departments,  and  it  covers  the  acts  of  all  state  officers  as 
such.6  It  is  applicable,  however,  only  to  the  passage  and  en- 
forcement of  laws,  not  to  mere  administration.7  It  nullifies  all 
state  legislation  and  state  action  impairing  the  privileges  oi 
citizens  or  injuring  them  in  life,  liberty  or  property  without 
due  process  of  law,  or  denying  equal  protection  of  the  laws,8 
but  it  was  not  designed  to  extend  to  or  override  public  rights 
or  servitudes,  existing  in  the  form  of  easements,  held  by  the 
courts  of  a  state  to  be  valid  under  the  state  constitution  and 
laws.0 

The  prohibitions  are  of  acts  of  states  and  not  of  private  in- 
dividuals,10 and  the  amendment  cannot  be  said  to  be  impaired 
by  the  wrongful  acts  of  individuals  unsupported  by  state  au- 
thority.11 Any  wrongful  act  done  by  an  individual  under  the 
authority  of  the  state  is  prohibited.1'2 

4  Virginia  v.  Eives,  100  U.  S.  313,  25  L.  ed.  667;  United  States 
v.  Harris,  106  U.  S.  627,  1  S.  Ct.  601,  27  L.  ed.  290;  Civil  Eights  Cases, 
109  IT.  S.  17,  3  S.  Ct.  18,  27  L.  ed.  835;  L,e  Grand  v.  United  States, 
12  Fed.  581;  Kailroad  Tax  Cases,  18  Fed.  385;  St.  Louis  v.  Eicheson, 
76  Mo.  470. 

5  San  Mateo  County  v.  Southern  Pacific  K.  B.  Co.,  8  Saw.  238,  13 
Fed.  722. 

6  Chicago  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  166  U.  S.  233,  17  S.  Ct.  581,  41 
L.  ed.  979;  Scott  v.  McNeal,  154  U.  S.  45,  14  S.  Ct.  1108,  38  L.  ed. 
896;  Ah  Kow  v.  Nunan,  5  Saw.  552,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6546;  Parrott's 
Case,  6  Saw.  349,  1  Fed.  481. 

7  Claybrook  v.  Owensboro,  16  Fed.  297;  Smoot  v.  Kentucky  Cent. 
E.  E.,  13  Fed.  337. 

8  Civil  Eights  Cases,  109  U.  S.  11-17,  3  S.  Ct.  18,  27  L.  ed.  835. 

»  Eldridge  v.  Trezevant,  160  U.  S.  468,  16  S.  Ct.  345,  40  L.  ed.  490. 

io  Virginia  v.  Eives,  100  U.  S.  313,  25  L.  ed.  667;  United  States 
v.  Harris,  106  U.  S.  639,  1  S.  Ct.  609,  27  L.  ed.  290;  Le  Grand  v. 
United  States,  12  Fed.  5S0;  Smoot  v.  Kentucky  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  13 
Fed.  344;  Kiernan  v.  Multnomah,  95  Fed.   849. 

11  Civil  Eights  Cases,  109  U.  S.  12,  3  S.  Ct.  22,  27  L.  ed.  £35. 

12  Pacific  Gas  Imp.  Co.  v.  Ellert,  64  Fed.  430;  Nashville  etc.  Ey. 
Co.  v.  Taylor,  86  Fed.  184. 


Am.  XIV,  §  1  Citizenship.  G98 
Effect  on  Police  Power. 


The  police  power  was  reserved  by  the  states  at  the  time  the 
original  constitution  was  adopted,13  and  the  Fourteenth  Amend- 
ment was  not  designed  to  interfere  in  the  least  with  the  exer- 
cise of  that  power.14  It  does  not  limit  the  subjects  upon  which 
the  police  power  of  the  states  may  be  exerted,15  nor  does  it  in- 
terfere with  the  powers  of  the  courts  in  administering  process 
provided  by  police  regulations.10 

Citizenship. 

The  Fourteenth  Amendment  is  one  of  a  series  having  a  com- 
mon object — the  securing  to  the  negro  race  of  all  the  civil 
rights  enjoyed  by  the  white  race,  and  the  placing  of  such  en- 
joyment under  the  protection  of  the  federal  government;17  and 
the  first  clause  of  section  1,  by  defining  United  States  citizen- 
ship, brought  #  the  negro  within  the  definition  and  conferred 
citizenship  upon  his  race.18  This  clause  also  establishes  a 
citizenship  of  the  United  States  distinct  from  the  citizenship  of 
the  individual  states.19 

13  Mugler  v.  Kansas,  123  U.  S.  665,  8  S.  Ct.  273,  31  L.  ed.  205. 

14  Slaughter-house  Cases,  16  Wall.  63,  21  L.  ed.  394;  Barbier  v. 
Connolly,  113  U.  S.  31,  5  S.  Ct.  357,  28  L.  ed.  923;  Mugler  v.  Kansas, 
123  U.  S.  665,  8  S.  Ct.  273,  31  L.  ed.  205;  Powell  v.  Pennsylvania,  127 
U.  S.  683,  8  S.  Ct.  992,  32  L.  ed.  253;  In  re  Rahrer,  140  U.  S.  555, 
11  S.  Ct.  865,  35  L.  ed.  572;  Giozza  v.  Tiernan,  148  U.  S.  662,  13  3. 
Ct.  721,  37  L.  ed.  599;  Davis  v.  Massachusetts,  167  U.  S.  47,  17  S. 
Ct.  731,  42  L.  ed.  71;  Deems  v.  Mayor,  80  Md.  164,  45  Am.  St.  Rep. 
339,  30  Atl.  648,  26  L.  R.  A.  541;  State  v.  Schlenker,  112  Iowa,  642, 
84  Am.  St.  Rep.  360,  84  N.  W.  698,  51  L.  R.  A.  347. 

15  Minneapolis  Ry.  v.  Beckwith,  129  U.  S.  29,  9  S.  Ct.  207,  32  L. 
ed.  585;  Jones  v.  Brim,  165  U.  S.  182,  17  S.  Ct.  282,  41  L.  ed.  677; 
St.  Louis  etc.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Mathews,  165  U.  S.  25,  17  S.  Ct.  252,  41 
L.  ed.  611;  State  v.  Tutty,  41  Fed.  762,  7  L.  R.  A.  50;  Youngblood 
v.  Birmingham,  95  Ala.  526,  36  Am.  St.  Rep.  249,  12  South.  581,  20 
L.  R.  A.  58. 

ic  In  re  Converse,  137  U.  S.  632,  11  S.  Ct.  191,  34  L.  ed.  796. 

17  Strauder  v.  West  Virginia,  100  U.  S.  307,  25  L.  ed.  664;  Bush 
v.  Kentucky,  107  U.  S.  118,  1  S.  Ct.  632,  27  L.  ed.  354;  Claybrook 
v.  Owensboro,  16  Fed.  302. 

18  Slaughter-house  Cases,  16  Wall.  72,  21  L.  ed.  394. 

19  Slaughter-house  Cases,  16  Wall.  73,  21  L.  ed.  394;  Boyd  v.  Ne- 
braska, 143  U.  S.  158,  1?  S.  Ct.  375,  36  L.  ed.  103;  United  States  v. 


699  Citizenship.  Am.  XIV,  §  1 

The  word  "citizen,"  as  used  in  the  constitution,  means  a  mem- 
ber of  the  nation,  owing  allegiance  thereto  and  entitled  to  pro- 
tection therefrom;  in  its  broad  sense  it  is  synonymous  with 
"subject"  and  "inhabitant,"  and  conveys  only  the  idea  of  mem- 
bership in  a  nation;20  in  this  sense  allegiance  on  the  one  side 
and  protection  on  the  other  constitutes  citizenship,208  and  the 
term  "citizen"  is  entirely  analogous  to  "subject"  at  common 
law.21  "Subject  to  the  jurisdiction"  of  the  United  States 
means,  not  merely  subject  to  that  jurisdiction  in  some  respects. 
but  completely  subject  to  it,  and  owing  the  United  States  im- 
mediate allegiance;22  accordingly  the  phrase  excludes,  as  it  was 
undoubtedly  intended  to  exclude,  children  of  foreign  ministers 
and  consuls  and  subjects  of  foreign  states  transiently  within  the 
United  States.23 

This  section  contemplates  two  sources  of  citizenship,  and  but 
two — birth  and  naturalization;24  so  "citizen"  as  here  used  is 
not  synonymous  with  "resident";  residence  within  the  juris- 
diction of  the  United  States  does  not  necessarily  constitute  one 
a  citizen  of  the  United  States.25  So,  also,  an  Indian,  although 
born  within  the  territorial  limits  of  the  United  States,  if  he 
belongs  to  a  tribe  recognized  as  such  by  the  United  States,  is 
not  a  citizen  and  cannot  acquire  United  States  citizenship  by 
severing  his  tribal  relations.26     This  section  does  not  confer  any 

Anthony,  11  Blatchf.  203,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,459;  Cully  v.  Baltimore 
etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  1  Hughes,  536,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3466;  In  re  Kenimler,  136 
U.  S.  448,  10  S.  Ct.  930,  34  L.  ed.  519. 

20  Minor  v.  Hwppersett,  21  Wall.  166,  22  L.  ed.  627. 
20a  Smith  v.  Moody,  26  Ind.  305. 

21  United  States  v.  Ehodes,  1  Abb.  U.  S.  39,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,151; 
McKay  v.  Campbell,  2  Saw.  129,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8840;  North  Carolina 
v.  Manuel,  4  Dev.  &  B.  20. 

22  Elk  v.  Wilkins,  112  U.  S.  103,  5  S.  Ct.  41,  28  L.  ed.  643;  United 
States  v.  Wong  Kim  Ark,  169  U.  S.  676,  18  S.  Ct.  467,  42  L.  ed.  890, 
affirming  71  Fed.  385. 

?3   Slaughter-house  Cases,  16  Wall.  73,  21  L.  ed.  394. 

24  Elk  v.  Wilkins,  112  U.  S.  103,  5  S.  Ct.  41,  28  L.  ed.  643. 

25  Eobertson  v.  Cease,  97  U.  S.  648,  24  L.  ed.  1057. 

26  Elk  v.  Wilkins,  112  U.  S.  103,  5  S.  Ct.  41,  28  L.  ed.  643;  Paul 
v.  Chilsoquie,  70  Fed.  402;  McKay  v.  Campbell,  2  Saw.  129,  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  8840.  And  see  Smith  v.  United  States,  151  U.  S.  56,  14 
S.  Ct.  234,  38  L.  ed.  67. 


Am.  XIV,  §  1  Citizenship.  700 

rights  of  citizenship  upon  persons  of  foreign  birth  ;27  in  order 
to  make  an  alien  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  as  distinguished 
from  a  citizen  of  a  state,  naturalization  under  the  rules  pre- 
scribed by  Congress  is  necessary. 2S  But  while  Chinese  persons 
not  born  in  this  country  have  never  been  recognized  as  citizens 
of  the  United  States  nor  authorized  to  become  naturalized,29 
yet  the  power  to  make  citizens  by  naturalization  cannot  exclude 
Chinese  persons  born  here  from  the  inclusive  operation  of  the 
phrase  "all  persons  born  in  the  United  States  and  subject  to  the 
jurisdiction  thereof."30  Accordingly  an  American-born  child 
of  alien  parents  cannot  be  excluded  upon  his  return  with  his 
parents  from  a  temporary  visit  abroad.31 

The  naturalization  of  a  father  confers  United  States  citizen- 
ship upon  his  minor  children,32  and  this  though  they  were  born 
out  of  the  United  States,  if  they  were  living  therein  at  the  time 
of  their  father's  naturalization.33  If  the  naturalization  is 
completed  before  a  child  attains  his  majority  his  status  as  a 
citizen  is  fixed,  but  if  he  becomes  of  age  between  the  date  of 
his  father's  declaration  of  intention  and  the  date  of  naturaliza- 
tion, his  status  is  merely  inchoate  and  may  be  repudiated.34 

A  woman  is  a  "person"  within  the  meaning  of  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment,35  and  the  word  "citizen"  includes  women  born 
within  the  United  States  and  subject  to  their  jurisdiction.36 
The  marriage  of  an  alien-born  woman,  entitled  to  be  natural- 

27  Van  Valkenburg  v.  Brown,  43  Cal.  43,  13  Am.  Rep.  136. 

28  Boyd  v.  Nebraska,  143  U.  S.  158,  12  S.  Ct.  375,  36  L.  ed.  103. 

29  Fong  Yue  Ting  v.  United  States,  149  XL  S.  716,  13  S.  Ct.  1016, 
37  L.  ed.  905;  In  re  Ah  Yup,  5  Saw.  155,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  104. 

30  United  States  v.  Wong  Kim  Ark,  169  U.  S.  704,  18  S.  Ct.  456, 
42  L.  ed.  890.  And  see  State  v.  Ah  Chew,  16  Nev.  51,  40  Am.  iiet. 
488. 

31  In  re  Giovanna,  93  Fed.  660;  In  re  Look  Tin  Sing,  21  Fed.  905; 
Lee  Sing  Far  v.  United  States,  94  Fed.  836. 

32  Campbell  v.  Gordon,  6  Cr.  183,  3  L.  ed.  190. 

33  Gumm  v.  Hubbard,  97  Mo.  311,  10  Am.  St.  Rep.  312,  11  S.  W. 
601. 

34  Boyd  v.  Nebraska,  143  U.  S.  177,  12  S.  Ct.  375,  36  L.  ed.  103. 

35  Ritchie  v.  People,  155  111.  98,  46  Am.  St.  Rep.  315,  40  N.  E. 
454,  20  L.  R.  A.  79. 

38  In  re  Lockwood,  154  U.  S.  117,  14  S.  Ct.  1082,  38  L.  ed.  929. 


701  Citizenship.  Ahi.  XIV,  §  1 

ized,  with  a  citizen  makes  her  a  citizen,37  and  the  marriage  of 
a  woman  to  a  son  made  a  citizen  by  virtue  of  his  father's  natur- 
alization confers  citizenship  upon  her.38  A  feme  citizen  does 
not  become  an  alien  by  her  marriage  to  an  alien,  although  the 
latter  be  an  enemy  of  this  country.39 

While  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  in  any  state  of  the 
Union  is  a  citizen  of  the  state  wherein  he  resides,40  yet  this 
section  recognizes  a  difference  between  citizens  of  the  United 
States  and  citizens  of  a  state.41  A  person  may  be  a  citizen 
of  the  United  States  without  being  a  citizen  of  any  state,42 
and  rights  of  citizenship  may  be  different  from  those  enjoyed 
as  a  citizen  of  a  state.43  The  states  may  confer  upon  in- 
dividuals the  rights  of  citizens  within  their  borders,  but  they 
cannot  invest  them  with  the  character  or  rights  of  United  States 
citizens.44  Thus  the  right  of  suffrage  is  not  coextensive  with 
United  States  citizenship.45  A  naturalized  citizen  is  a  citizen 
of  the  United  States,  and  derives  his  rights  from  the  federal 
constitution,46  but  the  right  to  vote  in  the  states  comes  from 
the  states.47 

37  Kelly  v.  Owen,  7  Wall.  498,  19  L.  ed.  283;  Kreitz  v.  Bekrens- 
meyer,  125  111.  141,  8  Am.  St.  Rep.  349,  17  N.  E.  232. 

38  Dorsey  v.  Brigham,  177  111.  250,  69  Am.  St.  Rep.  228,  52  N.  E. 
303,  42  L.  R,  A.  809. 

39  Shanks  v.  Dupont,  3  Pet.  246,  7  L.  ed.  666. 

40  Gassies  v.  Ballon,  6  Pet.  762,  8  L.  ed.  573;  Boyd  v.  Nebraska,  143 
U.  S.  158,  12  S.  Ct.  375,  36  L.  ed.  103. 

41  Slaughter-house  Cases,  16  Wall.  72,  73,  21  L.  ed.  394;  Frasher 
v.  State,  3  Tex.  App.  267,  30  Am.  Rep.  131. 

42  Slaughter-house  Cases,  161  Wall.  74,  21  L.  ed.  394;  United  States 
v.  Crnikshank,  92  U.  S.  543,  23  L.  ed.  588;  Marks  v.  Marks,  75  Fed. 
324;  Cully  v.  Baltimore  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  1  Hughes,  536,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
3466. 

43  United  States  v.  Cruikshank,  92  U.  S.  549,  23  L.  ed.  5S8;  Keller 
v.  Corpus  Christi,  50  Tex.  529,  32  Am.  Rep.  616. 

44  Dred  Scott  v.  Sandford,  19  How.  405-407,  15  L.  ed.  691;  Minne- 
apolis v.  Reum,  56  Fed.  581. 

45  Minor  v.  Happersett,  21  Wall.  178,  22  L.  ed.  627;  Gougar  v. 
Timberlake,  148  Ind.  41,  62  Am.  St.  Rep.  489,  46  N.  E.  339,  37  L. 
R.  A.' 644;  McPherson  v.  Blacker,  146  U.  S.  37,  13  S.  Ct.  3,  36  L. 
ed.  869. 

46  Osborne  v.  United  States  Bank,  9  Wheat.  827,  6  L.  ed.  204. 

47  United  States  v.  Cruikshank,  92  U.  S.  556,  23  L.  ed.  588. 


Am.  XIV,  §  1      Privileges  and  Immunities.  702 

Privileges  and  Immunities.* 

The  prohibition  against  the  abridgment  of  the  privileges  and 
immunities  of  "citizens  of  the  United  States"  means  only  privi- 
leges and  immunities  incident  to  citizenship  of  the  United 
States  as  distinguished  from  citizenship  of  the  several  states.48 
Protection  extends  only  to  those  privileges  and  immunities  aris- 
ing out  of  the  nature  and  essential  character  of  the  federal  .gov- 
ernment and  granted  or  secured  by  tbe  constitution;49  they  are 
not  identical  with  those  referred  to  in  article  IV,  section  2, 
clause  l.50  This  amendment  prohibits  the  abridgment  of  privi- 
leges or  immunities  of  citizens  of  the  United  States,  but  there 
is  nothing  in  it  which  prevents  the  abridgment  of  privileges  or 
immunities  incident  only  to  state  citizenship.51  The  "privi- 
leges and  immunities"  guaranteed  to  citizens  of  the  states  se- 
cures the  right  of  such  citizens  to  pass  unmolested  into  any 
other  state  for  lawful  commerce,  to  acquire  and  hold  real  and 
personal  property,  to  maintain  actions  in  the  courts  and  to  be 
exempt  from  higher  taxes  than  are  imposed  by  a  state  on  its 
own  citizens;52  while  those  of  national  citizenship  include  the 
right  to  go  to  the  seat  of  government  and  transact  business 
with  it;  the  right  of  free  access  to  its  seaports,  and  the  right 
to  demand  the  care  and  protection  of  the  government  wherever 
the  citizen  may  be.53 

The  Fourteenth  Amendment  adds  nothing  to  the  rights  of 
one  citizen  as  against  another;54  nor  does  it  add  to  the  privi- 

48  Slaughter-house  Cases,  16  Wall.  74-80,  21  L.  ed.  394. 

49  Dunean  v.  Missouri,  152  U.  S.  382,  14  S.  Ct.  570,  38  L.  ed.  485; 
Philbrook  v.  Newman,  85  Fed.  142;  State  v.  Wilson,  121  N.  C.  462, 
28  S.  E.  559;  State  v.  McCann,  21  Ohio  St.  198. 

50  Slaughter-house  Cases,  16  Wall.  74-80,  21  L.  ed.  394.  The 
"privileges  and  immunities"  referred  to  in  article  IV  are  such 
as  a  state  gives  to  its  citizens.     See,  ante,  p.  572  et.  seq. 

51  Slaughter-house  Cases,  16  Wall.  74-80,  21  L.  ed.  394;  Ex  parte 
Kinney,  3  Hughes,  9,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7825;  Ex  parte  Francois,  3 
Woods,  367,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5047;  Livestock  etc.  Assn.  v.  Crescent 
City  etc.  Co.,  1  Abb.  U.  S.  398,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8408;  Short  v.  State, 
80  Md.  392,  31  Atl.  322,  29  L.  E.  A.  404;  People  v.  Gallagher,  11 
Abb.  N.  C.  187. 

52  Ward  v.  Maryland,  12  Wall.  430,  20  L.  ed.  449. 

53  Slaughter-house  Cases,  16  Wall.  79,  21  L.  ed.  394. 

64  United    States  v.   Cruikshank,    92    U.   S.    554,   23    L.   ed.    58S; 


*See  p.  572  et  seq.  for  privileges  of  state  citizenship. 


703  Privileges  and  Immunities.      Am.  XIV,  §  1 

leges  and  immunities  existing  at  the  time  of  its  adoption.55 
It  simply  furnishes  an  additional  guaranty  against  encroach- 
ment on  those  already  existing.56  It  does  not,  however,  merely 
guarantee  that  there  shall  be  equality  of  privileges  and  im- 
munities, but  that  they  shall  be  absolutely  unabridged  and  un- 
impaired.57 It  forbids,  so  far  as  civil  and  political  rights  are 
concerned,  any  discrimination  by  the  states  against  a  citizen 
because  of  his  race,58  but  it  does  not  operate  to  extend  the 
prohibitions  of  the  Fourth  and  Fifth  Amendments  to  the 
states.59 

The  purpose  of  this  clause  was  to  confer  upon  the  colored 
race  perfect  equality  of  civil  and  political  rights  with  whites,60 
and  to  prevent  any  person  or  class  from  being  made  the  ob- 
ject of  discriminating  or  hostile  legislation.61  But  the  equality 
contemplated  was  not  social  equality;  it  was  not  intended  that 
there  should  be  a  social  equality  between  the  races  or  a  com- 
mingling of  them  on  terms  unsatisfactory  to  either.6?2-  The 
courts  have  never  attempted  to  define  or  enumerate  the  privi- 
leges and  immunities  guaranteed,  and  in  construing  the  pro- 
vision the  meaning  of  the  words  "privileges"'  and  "immunities" 

Presser  v.  Illinois,  116  U.  S.  268,  6  S.  Ct.  586,  29  L.  ed.  615;  In  re 
Kemmler,  136  U.  S.  448,  10  S.  Ct.  934,  34  L.  ed.  519. 

55  Minor  v.  Happersett,  21  Wall.  171,  22  L.  ed  627;  Holden  v. 
Hardy,  169  U.  S.  383,  18  S.  Ct.  385,  42  L.  ed.  780;  Ward  v.  Floo.l, 
48  Cal.  36;  McPherson  v.  Secretary  of  State,  92  Mich.  390,  31  Am. 
St.  Eep.  596,  52  N.  W.  473,  16  L.  E.  A.  475. 

56  United  States  v.  Cruikshank,  92  U.  S.  554,  23  L.  ed.  588;  Minor 
v.  Happersett,  21  Wall.  171,  22  L.  ed.  627;  Van  Valkenburg  v.  Brown, 
43  Cal.  43;  Ex  parte  Plessy,  45  La.  Ann.  87,  11  South.  951,  18  L. 
E.  A.  639. 

57  Livestock  etc.  Assn.  v.  Crescent  City  etc.  Co.,  1  Abb.  U.  S. 
398,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8408. 

58  Williams  v.  Mississippi,  170  TJ.  S.  219,  18  S.  Ct.  583,  42  L.  ed. 
1012. 

59  People  v.  Fish,  125  N.  Y.  151,  26  N.  E.  323;  State  v.  Atkinson, 
40  S.  C.  371,  42  Am.  St.  Eep.  884,  18  S.  E.  1024. 

60  Virginia  v.  Eives,  100  U.  S.  318,  25  L.  ed.  667;  Ex  parte  Vir- 
ginia, 100  U.  S.  345,  25  L.  ed.  667. 

61  McPherson  v.  Blacker,  146  TJ.  S.  39,  13  S.  Ct.  3,  36  L.  ed.  869. 

62  Plessy  v.  Ferguson,  16a  U.  S.  544,  16  S.  Ct.  113S,  41  L.  ed.  256. 


Am.  XIV,  §  1       Privileges  and  Immunities.  704: 

should  be  determined  in  each  case  upon  a  view  of  the  particular 
rights  asserted  and  denied  therein.63 

The  right  of  intermarriage  is  not  a  privilege  or  immunity 
of  United  States  citizenship  protected  by  this  amendment,  mar- 
riage laws  being  under  the  control  of  the  states.64  So  the  states 
may  provide  against  miscegenation  and  make  it  a  felony,65  and  a 
statute  prescribing  a  greater  punishment  for  adultery  or  for- 
nication when  committed  by  a  negro  and  a  white  person,  than 
when  committed  by  two  whites  or  two  negroes,  does  not  vio- 
late this  amendment:  the  discrimination  is  not  against  race  but 
against  an  offense  which  may  result  in  the  amalgamation  of 
the  two  races  and  a  degraded  civilization.66 

State  laws  which  afford  equal  advantages  and  privileges  for 
the  education  of  white  and  colored  children,  and  merely  sep- 
arate them  for  the  purpose  of  receiving  instruction,  do  not  de- 
prive anyone  of  the  privileges  or  immunities  of  United  States 
citizenship,  but  are  reasonable  regulations  for  the  exercise  of 
such  rights,67  and  the  failure  of  a  school  board  to  maintain  a 
high  school  for  colored  children  because  of  lack  of  funds  to  do 
so  without  closing  a  colored  primary  school  does  not  violate 
this  provision.68     Provisions  for  the  education  of  Mongolian 

63  Conner  v.  Elliott,  18  How.  593,  15  L.  ed.  497;  Holden  v.  Hardy, 
169  TJ.  S.  366,  42  L.  ed.  7S0;  Ex  parte  Hobbs,  1  Woods,  542,  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  6550;  Livestock  etc.  Assn.  v.  Crescent  City  etc.  Co.,  1  Abb. 
U.  S.  397,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8408. 

64  Conner  v.  Elliott,  18  How.  593,  15  L.  ed.  497;  Ex  parte  Hobb3, 
1  "Woods,  537,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6550;  Ex  parte  Kinney,  3  Hughes,  9, 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  7825;  Ex  parte  Francois,  3  Woods,  367,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
5047;  Lonas  v.  State,  3  Heisk.  287;  Green  v.  State,  58  Ala.  190,  29 
Am.  Eep.  739;  State  v.  Gibson,  36  Ind.  389,  10  Am.  Eep.  42;  State  v. 
Jackson,  80  Mo.  175,  50  Am.  Eep.  499. 

65  Frasher  v.  State,  3  Tex.  App.  262;  State  v.  Gibson,  36  Ind.  389, 
10  Am.  Eep.  42. 

66  Pace  v.  Alabama,  106  U.  S.  585,  1  S.  Ct.  637,  27  L.  ed.  207,  affirm- 
ing 69  Ala.  231,  44  Am.  Eep.  513. 

67  Bertonneau  v.  City  Directors,  3  Woods,  177,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1361; 
United  States  v.  Buntin,  12  Fed.  730;  Claybrook  v.  City  of  Owens- 
boro,  16  Fed.  297;  Lehew  v.  Brummell,  103  Mo.  546,  23  Am.  St.  Eep. 
895,  15  S.  W.  765,  11  L.  E.  A.  828. 

68  Cumming  v.  Board  of  Education,  175  U.  S.  545,  20  S.  Ct.  197, 
44  L.  ed.  262. 


•JOo  Privileges  and  Immunities.      Am.  XIV,  §  1 

children  in  separate  schools  rest  upon  the  same  ground  and  are 
valid  in  the  absence  of  discrimination.69 

A  law  which  authorizes  the  separation  of  the  white  and 
colored  races  in  public  conveyances  is  a  reasonable  exercise  of 
the  police  power  and  not  repugnant  to  this  amendment.70 

Although  the  supreme  court  has  declared  it  to  be  doubtful 
whether  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  had  any  other  aim  than  to 
prevent  discrimination  because  of  race  or  color,71  and  that  state 
action  not  directed  against  negroes  will  not  be  construed  to 
be  within  the  limitation  unless  clearly  so,72  yet  it  extends  to 
all  persons  within  the  territorial  jurisdiction  of  the  United 
States  without  regard  to  race,  color,  or  nationality,73  and  pre- 
vents any  person  or  class  being  made  the  subject  of  discrimi- 
nating or  hostile  legislation.74  It  applies  to  white  as  well  as 
colored  persons  and  is  intended  to  protect  them  in  their  privi- 
leges and  immunities  as  citizens  of  the  United  States  against 
the  action  of  their  own  state  as  well  as  that  of  other  states,75 
and  while  special  legislation  is  not  repugnant  to  the  amendment 
if  all  persons  subject  to  it  are  treated  alike  under  the  same 
conditions,76  partial  and  arbitrary  legislation  cannot  be  sus- 
tained.77 

The  enjoyment,  upon  terms  of  equality  with  all  others,  of 
the  privilege   of   pursuing  an  ordinary  calling  or  trade,   and 

69  Wong  Him  v.  Callahan,  119  Fed.  381. 

70  Plessy  v.  Ferguson,  163  U.  S.  551,  16'  S.  Ct.  1138,  41  L.  ed.  256, 
affirming  Ex  parte  Plessy,  45  La.  Ann.  87,  11  South.  951,  18  L.  E. 
A.  639. 

71  St  auder  v.  "West  Virginia,  100  IT.  S.  310,  25  L.  ed.  664;  Logan 
v.  United  States,  144  U.  S.  289,  12  S.  Ct.  6,24,  36  L.  ed.  429. 

72  Slaughter-house  Cases,  16  Wall.  81,  21  L.  ed.  394. 

73  Yick  Wo  v.  Hopkins,  118  U.  S.  638,  '6  S.  Ct.  1064,  30  L.  ed. 
220. 

74  McPherson  v.  Blacker,  146  U.  S.  39,  13  S.  Ct.  3,  36  L.  ed.  869. 

75  Livestock  etc.  Assn.  v.  Crescent  City  etc.  Co.,  1  Abb.  U.  S.  388, 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  8408. 

76  Missouri  Ky.  Co.  v.  Mackey,  127  U.  S.  209,  8  S.  Ct.  1161,  32  L. 
ed.  107. 

77  Caldwell  v.  Texas,  137  U.  S.  698,  11  S.  Ct.  224,  34  L.  ed.  816; 
Atchison  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Matthews,  174  U.  S.  104,  19  S.  Ct.  609,  43 
L.  ed.  909. 

Notes  on  Constitution — 45 


Am.  XIV,  §  1      Privileges  and  Immunities.  706 

acquiring  and  selling  property,  is  an  essential  part  of  a  citizen's 
rights  guaranteed  by  the  Fourteenth  Amendment,78  and  an 
ordinance  giving  supervisors  arbitrary  power  to  withhold  per- 
mits to  conduct  a  certain  business — e.  g.,  laundering — without 
regard  to  any  just  rule,  is  void.79  The  regulation  of  the  man- 
ner and  times  when  such  business  shall  be  carried  on,  however, 
violates  no  constitutional  prohibition.80  The  right  to  practice 
law  in  the  courts  of  a  state  is  not  a  privilege  incident  to  United 
States  citizenship;81  hence  an  act  limiting  the  admission  of 
attorneys  to  white  male  citizens  is  not  repugnant  to  the  Four- 
teenth Amendment.82  Nor  is  the  right  to  practice  medicine  a 
privilege  of  national  citizenship.83  The  right  to  sell  intoxica- 
ting liquors  is  not  a  privilege  of  United  States  citizenship  un- 
der this  clause.84  Nor  does  the  constitutional  guaranty  vest 
the  citizens  of  one  state  with  the  right  to  fish  or  take  oysters 
in  another  state.85 

A  state  has  entire  control  over  the  procedure  in  its  courts, 
both  in  civil  and  criminal  matters,  subject  only  to  the  restric- 
tions against  the  denial  of  fundamental  rights,  and  the  positive 
provisions  of  the  constitution,86  and  it  is  not  a  right,  privi- 
lege, or  immunity  of  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  to  have  a 

78  Powell  v.  Pennsylvania,  127  U.  S.  624,  8  S.  Ct.  992,  32  L.  ed.  253; 
Lawton  v.  Steele,  152  U.  S.  137,  14  S.  Ct.  499,  38  L.  ed.  385;  All- 
geyer  v.  Louisiana,  165  TJ.  S.  589,  17  S.  Ct.  427,  41  L.  ed.  832. 

79  Yick  Wo    v.  Hopkins,  118  IT.  S.  369,  6  S.  Ct.  1064,  30  L.  ed.  220. 

80  Barbier  v.  Connolly,  113  TJ.  S.  30,  5  S.  Ct.  357,  28  L.  ed.  923; 
Soon  Hing  v.  Crowley,  113  U.  S.  708,  5  S.  Ct.  730,  28  L.  ed.  1145. 

81  In  re  Lockwood,  154  TJ.  S.  117,  14  S.  Ct.  1082,  38  L.  ed.  929; 
Bradwell  v.  State,  16  Wall.  130,  21  L.  ed.  442. 

82  Bradwell  v.  State,  16  Wall.  138,  21  L.  ed.  442;  Philbrook  v. 
Newman,  85  Fed.  142;  Robinson's  Case,  131  Mass.  377,  41  Am.  Kep. 
240;  In  re  Taylor,  48  Md.  28. 

83  Ex  parte  Spinney,  10  Nev.  323;  France  v.  State,  57  Ohio  St.  22, 
47  N.  E.  1044. 

84  Bartemeyer  v.  Iowa,  18  Wall.  133,  21  L.  ed.  929;  Giozza  v.  Tier- 
nan,  148  U.  S.  661,  1.3  S.  Ct.  721,  37  L.  ed.  599. 

85  McCready  v.  Virginia,  94  U.  S.  395,  396,  24  L.  ed.  248;  State 
v.  Harmb,  95  Ala.  176,  36  Am.  St.  Rep.  195,  10  South.  552,  15  L.  R. 
A.  761. 

86  Maxwell  v.  Dow,  176  U.  S.  604,  20  S.  Ct.  448,  44  L.  ed.  597. 


707  Privileges  and  Immunities.      Am.  XIV,  §  1 

controversy  in  a  state  court  prosecuted  or  determined  by  one 
form  of  action  instead  of  by  another.87  A  statute  of  limita- 
tions which  provides  that  it  shall  not  run  against  an  absent  de- 
fendant if  the  plaintiff  resides  in  the  state,  but  shall  if  he  re- 
sides out  of  the  state,  abridges  no  privilege  or  immunity  of 
national  citizenship.88  But  a  statute  providing  that  in  actions 
in  personam  against  nonresident  individuals,  service  may  be 
made  on  their  resident  agents  or  managers,  deprives  such  non- 
residents of  a  privilege  of  national  citizenship.89  Trial  by  jury 
in  suits  at  common  law  in  state  courts  is  not  a  privilege  guar- 
anteed by  this  amendment.90 

A  transfer  tax  law  which  applies  to  remainders  created  by 
will  before  precedent  estates  terminate  and  remainders  vest  is 
not  repugnant  to  this  amendment,91  but  a  collateral  inheritance 
tax  law  undertaking  to  exempt  resident  nephews  and  nieces 
from  its  operation  is  void.92 

A  statute  denying  to  nonresidents  the  right  of  appointment 
as  trustees  is  invalid  as  abridging  a  privilege  protected  by  this 
article.93  So  also  is  a  statute  giving  the  preference  to  resident 
creditors  in  the  distribution  of  an  insolvent  corporation's  as- 
sets.94 

A  corporation  is  not  a  "citizen"  within  the  meaning  of  the 
Fourteenth  Amendment;95  a  corporation  has  no  absolute  right 

87  Iowa  Central  Ry.  v.  Iowa,  160  U.  S.  393,  16  S.  Ct.  344,  40  L. 
ed.  467. 

88  Chemung  Canal  Bank  v.  Lowery,  93  U.  S.  72,  23  L.  ed.  806. 

89  Moredock  v.  Kirby,  118  Fed.  180. 

90  Walker  v.  Sauvinet,  92  U.  S.  92,  23  L.  ed.  678;  Maxwell  v.  Dow, 
176  U.  S.  593,  20  S.  Ct.  448,  44  L.  ed.  597. 

91  Orr  v.  Gilman,  183  U.  S.  289,  22  S.  Ct.  213,  46  L.  ed.  196. 

92  Estate  of  Mahoney,  133  Cal.  180,  85  Am.  St.  Rep.  155,  65  Pac. 
389.  But  see  Magoun  v.  Illinois  etc.  Bank,  170  U.  S.  299,  18  S.  Ct. 
594,  42  L.  ed.  1037. 

93  Roby  v.  Smith,  131  Ind.  312,  31  Am.  St.  Rep.  439,  31  N.  E.  439. 

94  Blake  v.  McClung,  176  U.  S.  64,  20  S.  Ct.  307,  44  L.  ed.  371.  And 
see  Sully  v.  American  Nat.  Bank,  17S  U.  S.  299,  20  S.  Ct.  935,  44 
L.  ed.  1072. 

95  Ducat  v.  Chicago,  10  "Wall.  415,  19  L.  ed.  972;  Liverpool  Ins. 
Co.  v.  Massachusetts,  10  Wall.  573,  19  L.  ed.  1029;  Philadelphia  etc. 
Assn.  v.  New  York,  119  U.  S.  117,  7  S.  Ct.  108,  30  L.  ed.  342;  Orient 


Am.  XIV,  §  1  Due  Process  of  Law.  708 

of  recognition  in  any  other  state  than  the  state  of  its  creation,96 
and  without  violating  this  amendment,  a  state  may  impose  upon 
a  foreign  corporation  any  restrictions  it  may  deem  fit,  however 
discriminatory,97  or  it  may  exclude  such  corporations  entirely 
unless  restrained  by  some  other  provision  of  the  constitution.98 
A  corporation  has  not  the  rights  of  its  individual  members,  and 
cannot  invoke  the  protection  to  which  those  members  would  be 
entitled  as  citizens  to  bring  it  within  the  amendment.99 

Due  Process  of  Law.* 

The  phrase  "due  process  of  law"  is,  in  terms,  extended  to 
the  states  by  the  Fourteenth  Amendment.100  As  applied  to 
the  states,  the  guaranty  adds  nothing  to  the  right  of  one  citi- 
zen against  another,  but  simply  prevents  any  encroachment  by 
the  state  upon  the  fundamental  rights  which  belong  to  every 
citizen.101  "Due  process  of  law"  as  here  used  refers  to  the 
law  of  the  land  in  each  state,102  deriving  its  authority  from  in- 

Ins.  Co.  v.  Daggs,  172  U.  S.  561,  19  S.  Ct.  281,  43  L.  ed.  552,  affirming 
136  Mo.  382,  58  Am.  St.  Eep.  638,  38  S.  W.  85,  35  L.  E.  A.  227;  Lake 
Shore  etc.  Ey.  Co.  v.  Smith,  173  U.  S.  690,  19  S.  Ct.  565,  43  L.  ed. 
858;  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Mayer,  28  Ohio  St.  521;  Hawley  v. 
Hurd,  72  Vt.  122,  82  Am.  St.  Eep.  922,  47  Atl.  401,  52  L.  E.  A.  195; 
Woodward  v.  Commonwealth,  9  Ky.  Law   Eep.  670,  7  S.  W.  613. 

96  Eailroad  Co.  v.  Koontz,  104  U.  S.  11,  26  L.  ed.  643. 

97  Fritts   v.   Palmer,   132   U.  S.   288,   10   S.   Ct.   93,   33   L.   ed.   317 
Allgeyer  v.  Louisiana,  165  U.   S.   583,  17   S.   Ct.  427,  41  L.  ed.  832 
Dayton  Coal  etc.  Co.  v.  Barton,  183  U.  S.  24,  22  S.  Ct.  5,  46  L.  ed.  61 
Insurance  Co.  v.  City  of  New  Orleans,  1  Woods,  85,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
7052. 

98  Horn  Silver  Min.  Co.  v.  New  York,  143  U.  S.  314,  12  S.  Ct.  403, 
36  L.  ed.  164;  Ducat  v.  Chicago,  10  Wall.  415,  19  L.  ed.  972. 

99  Waters-Pierce  Oil  Co.  v.  Texas,  177  U.  S.  45,  20  S.  Ct.  518,  44 
L.  ed.  657. 

100  Hallinger  v.  Davis,  146  U.  S.  320,  13  S.  Ct.  105,  36  L.  ed.  986; 
State  v.  Bradley,  26  Fed.  289;  Scott  v.  Toledo,  36  Fed.  385,  1  L.  E. 
A.  688;  Ex  parte  Ulrich,  42  Fed.  587;  State  v.  Boswell,  104  Ind.  54J, 
4  N.  E.  675. 

101  United  States  v.  Cruikshank,  92  U.  S.  542,  23  L.  ed.  583. 

102  In  re  Kemmler,  136  U.  S.  448,  10  S.  Ct.  930,  34  L.  ed.  519;  In 
re  Converse,  137  U.  S.  632,  11  S.  Ct.  193,  34  L.  ed.  796;  Marchant  v. 


•For  general  discussion  of  subject,  see,  ante,  p.  641  et  seq. 


709  Due  Process  of  Law.  Am.  XIV,  §  1 

herent  and  reserved  powers  of  the  state,  exerted  within  the 
limits  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  liberty  and  justice  un- 
deriving  our  civil  and  political  institutions.103  What  is  due 
process  of  law  in  the  respective  states  is  regulated  and  deter- 
mined by  the  law  of  each  state,104  and  this  amendment  in  no 
way  undertakes  to  control  the  power  of  a  state  to  determine  by 
what  process  legal  rights  may  be  asserted,  or  legal  obligations 
enforced,  provided  the  method  of  procedure  adopted  for  these 
purposes  gives  reasonable  notice  and  affords  a  fair  opportunity 
to  be  heard  before  the  issues  are  decided.105  The  courts  will 
interfere  with  state  action,  on  the  ground  that  it  is  repugnant 
to  this  clause,  only  where  fundamental  rights  have  been  de- 
nied.106 

Life  and  Liberty.* 


The  Fourteenth  Amendment  does  not  limit  the  power  of  the 
states  to  deal  with  crimes,  but  merely  prevents  particular  per- 
sons or  classes  from  being  deprived  of  equal  and  impartial  jus- 
tice under  the  law,107  and  where  proceedings  are  conducted  in 
the  ordinary  forms  of  criminal  prosecutions  in  the  state  there 
is  no  denial  of  due  process  of  law.108  Accordingly  the  prosecu- 
tion of  offenses  by  information  instead  of  by  indictment  cannot 

Pennsylvania  E.  E.  Co.,  153  U.  S.  388,  14  S.  Ct.  897,  38  L.  ed.  751; 
Eroadfoot  v.  Fayetteville,  121  N.  C.  422,  61  Am.  St.  Eep.  670,  28  3. 
E.  516,  39  L.  E.  A.  245;  Bittenhaus  v.  Johnston,  92  Wis.  595,  66  N. 
W.  806,  32  L.  E.  A.  380. 

103  Hurtado  v.  California,  110  U.  S.  535,  4  S.  Ct.  Ill,  292,  28  L.  ed. 
232;  Hagar  v.  Eeclamation  District,  111  U.  S.  708.  4  S.  Ct.  663,  28 
L.  ed.  569. 

104  Walker  v.  Sauvinet,  92  CJ.  S.  93,  23  L.  ed.  678. 

105  Iowa  Central  Ey.  Co.  v.  Iowa,  160  U.  S.  393,  16  S.  Ct.  344,  40 
L.  ed.  467;  Brown  v.  New  Jersey,  175  U.  S.  175,  20  S.  Ct.  78,  44  L. 
ed.  119;  Storti  v.  Massachusetts,  183  U.  S.  138,  22  S.  Ct.  72,  46  L. 
ed.  120. 

106  Allen  v.  Georgia,  166  U.  S.  141,  17  S.  Ct.  525,  41  L.  ed.  949. 

107  Caldwell  v.  Texas,  137  U.  S.  697,  11  S.  Ct.  224,  34  L.  ed.  816w 

108  Miller  v.  Texas,  153  U.  S.  539,  14  S.  Ct.  874,  38  L.  ed.  812; 
Bergemann  v.  Backer,  157  U.  S.  658,  15  S.  Ct.  727,  39  L.  ed.  845; 
Minder  v.  Georgia,  183  U.  S.  559,  22  S.  Ct.  224,  46  L.  ed.  328. 


*For  definitions  of  these  terms,  see,  ante,  pp.  646,  647. 


Am.  XIV,  §  1  Due  Process  of  Law.  710 

be  said  to  deprive  of  life  or  liberty  without  due  process  of  law.109 
Nor  is  an  accused  person  who  has  been  regularly  indicted  de- 
prived of  due  process  of  law  because  of  mere  irregularities  in 
the  manner  in  which  he  is  brought  into  the  custody  of  the 
law.110  This  amendment  does  not  restrict  the  power  of  the 
legislature  to  limit,  change  or  vary  existing  rules  of  evidence  ;in 
so  a  provision  in  a  statute  that  in  a  prosecution  for  keeping  a 
place  for  the  unlawful  manufacture  of  intoxicating  liquors 
without  a  permit  the  state  need  not  prove  that  the  defendant 
had  no  permit,  is  not  void  as  depriving  him  of  the  presumption 
of  innocence;112  nor  is  a  law  which  merely  makes  a  fact  prima 
facie  evidence  of  crime.113 

A  statute  providing  that  a  defendant  waives  the  illegality  of 
a  service  of  process  by  appearing  to  challenge  the  jurisdiction 
does  not  deprive  him  of  liberty  without  due  process,114  nor  is 
a  person  deprived  of  any  constitutional  right  by  being  tried 
by  a  judge,  who,  although  appointed  without  authority,  has 
been  declared  by  the  highest  state  court  to  be  a  judge  de  facto 
of  a  court  de  jure.115  The  determination  of  a  state  legisla- 
ture that  electrocution  is  not  a  cruel  and  unusual  punishment, 
and  a  decision  of  a  state  court  sustaining  that  determination, 
do  not  deprive  an  accused  person  of  due  process  of  law.116  An 
appellate  court's  affirmance  of  a  death  sentence  in  the  absence 
of  the  accused  is  not  repugnant  to  this  amendment.117     It  is 

109  Hurtado  v.  California,  110  IT.  S.  538,  4  S.  Ct.  Ill,  292,  28  L.  ed. 
232;  McNulty  v.  California,  149  U.  S.  648,  13  S.  Ct.  959,  37  L.  ed. 
882;  Hodgson  v.  Vermont,  168  U.  S.  272,  18  S.  Ct.  80,  42  L.  ed.  461; 
Brown  v.  New  Jersey,  175  U.  S.  175,  20  S.  Ct.  78,  44  L.  ed.  119; 
Bolln  v.  Nebraska,  176  U.  S.  86,  20  S.  Ct.  287,  44  L.  ed.  382;  Davis  v. 
Burke,  179  U.  S.  404,  21  S.  Ct.  210,  45  L.  ed.  249;  In  re  Wright,  3 
Wyo.  478,  31  Am.  St.  Rep.  94,  27  Pac.  565,  13  L.  E.  A.  748. 

no  Ker  v.  Illinois,  119  U.  S.  440,  7  S.  Ct.  225,  30  L.  ed.  421. 

in  People  v.  Turner,  117  N.  Y.  227,  15  Am.  St.  Eep.  498,  22  N. 
E.   1022. 

H2  Mugler  v.  Kansas,  123  U.  S.  674,  8  S.  Ct.  273,  31  L.  ed.  205. 

113  Board  of  Commissioners  v.  Merchant,  103  N.  Y.  143,  57  Am. 
Rep.  705. 

U4  York  v.  Texas,  137  U.  S.  21,  11  S.  Ct.  9,  34  L.  ed.  604. 

U5  In  re  Manning,  139  U.  S.  506,  11  S.  Ct.  624,  35  L.  ed.  264. 

no  In  re  Kemmler,  136  U.  S.  449,  10  S.  Ct.  930,  34  L.  ed.  519. 

117   Schwab  v.  Berggren,  143  U.  S.  450,  12  S.  Ct.  525,  36  L.  ed.  218. 


711  Due  Process  of  Law.  Am.  XIV,  §  1 

competent  for  the  state  legislature  to  provide  that  the  governor 
shall  appoint  a  day  for  the  execution  of  a  sentence  of  death;118 
but  a  statute  purporting  to  give  to  the  board  of  managers  of 
a  reformatory  power  to  determine  whether  a  prisoner  should 
not  have  been  sent  to  the  penitentiary  and  to  transfer  him  in 
accordance  with  that  determination,  denies  due  process  of  law 
and  is  void.119 

An  appeal  to  a  higher  court  from  a  judgment  of  conviction 
is  not  a  matter  of  right,  but  may  be  accorded  by  a  state  to  a 
person  convicted  on  such  terms  as  it  may  think  proper.120 
And  where  a  criminal  under  sentence  escapes  after  a  writ  of 
error  has  been  sued  out,  the  supreme  court  does  not  deny  due 
process  of  law  in  dismissing  the  writ.1'21  The  refusal  of  a  state 
court  to  amend  the  record  so  as  to  show  that  the  accused  was 
not  present  in  person  or  by  counsel  at  the  affirmance  of  judg- 
ment by  that  court  does  not  deprive  the  accused  of  due  pro- 
cess.122 So  also  as  to  the  refusal  of  a  state  court  to  review 
the  question  whether  the  officers  in  charge  of  a  jury  were 
sworn.123 

A  valid  proceeding  to  commit  a  person  as  insane  requires 
notice  and  an  opportunity  to  be  heard  before  judgment;  there 
must  be  a  trial  and  an  opportunity  to  produce  witnesses  and 
evidence,124  and  a  statute  under  which  a  person  may  be  com- 
mitted to  and  confined  in  a  hospital  for  the  insane,  without 
giving  him  any   notice  of  the  proceeding  against  him,  and  au- 

118  Holden  v.  Minnesota,  137  TJ.  S.  495,  11  S.  Ct.  143,  34  L.  ed. 
734.  See,  also,  Dreyer  v.  Illinois,  187  U.  S.  71,  23  S.  Ct.  28,  47  L. 
ed.  797. 

119  People  v.  Mallary,  195  111.  582,  88  Ana.  St.  Rep.  212,  63  N. 
E.   508. 

120  Kane  v.  Durston,  153  U.  S.  687,  14  S.  Ct.  913,  38  L.  ed.  867; 
Andrews  v.  Swartz,  156  U.  S.  275,  15  S.  Ct.  389,  39  L.  ed.  422;  Kohl 
v.  Lehlbach,  160  U.  S.  297.  16  S.  Ct.  304,  40  L.  ed.  432;  Murphy  v. 
Massachusetts,  177  U.  S.  158,  20  S.  Ct.  639,  44  L.  ed.  711. 

121  Allen  v.  Georgia,  166  U.  S.  141,  17  S.  Ct.  525,  41  L.  ed.  949. 

122  Fielden  v.  Illinois,  143  TJ.  S.  456,  12  S.  Ct.  528,  36  L.  ed.  224. 

123  Dryer  v.  Illinois,  187  U.  S.  71,  23  S.  Ct.  28,  47  L.  ed.  79. 

1?4  State  v.  Billings,  55  Minn.  467,  43  Am.  St.  Rep.  525,  57  N.  W. 
206,  794.  But  see  Dowdell,  Petitioner,  169  Mass.  387,  67  Am.  St. 
Rep.   1033,  47  N.  E.  1033. 


Am.  XIV,  §  1  Due  Process  of  Law.  712 

thorizing  a  judge  to  commit  him  upon  a  certificate  of  medical 
examiners,  is  unconstitutional.125  But  a  person  is  not  deprived 
of  due  process  of  law  by  being  adjudged  insane  in  a  proceed- 
ing in  which  he  was  duly  served,  because  the  sheriff,  acting  on 
the  advice  of  a  physician,  did  not  produce  him  in  court.126 
After  a  regular  trial  and  conviction  for  a  crime,  if  a  sugges- 
tion of  then  existing  insanity  is  made,  in  order  to  constitute 
due  process  it  is  not  necessary  to  try  the  question  by  a  jury.127 

Property.* 

The  phrase  "life,  liberty  and  property"  includes  the  right  of 
each  individual  to  be  free  in  the  enjoyment  of  his  faculties,128 
and  the  natural  right  to  labor  and  to  enjoy  the  fruits  of  labor 
includes  the  right  to  contract  with  reference  to  that  labor.129 
The  right  to  contract  necessarily  includes  the  right  to  fix  the 
price  at  which  labor  shall  be  performed  and  the  mode  and 
time  of  payment,  and  a  statute  restricting  a  person  as  to  either 
of  these  elements  to  a  mode  different  from  that  enjoyed  by  the 
community  at  large  is  in  conflict  with  this  clause.130  A  stat- 
ute providing  for  the  weighing  of  coal  at  the  mines  is  uncon- 
stitutional so  far  as  it  declares  null  and  void  all  contracts  in 

125  In  re  Lambert,  134  Cal.  626,  86  Am.  St.  Eep.  296,  6&  Pac.  851, 
55  L.  E.  A.  856;  Doyle,  Petitioner,  16  E.  I.  537,  27  Am.  St.  Eep.  759, 
18  Atl.  159.  ' 

126  Simon  v.   Craft,  182  U.  S.   436,  21  S.  Ct.  836,  45  L.  ed.   1165. 

127  Nobles  v.  Georgia,  168  U.  S.  405,  18  S.  Ct.  87,  42  L.  ed.  515. 

128  State  v.  Dalton,  22  E.  I.  77,  84  Am.  St.  Eep.  818,  46  Atl.  234, 
48  L.  E.  A.  775. 

129  Gillespie  v.  People,  188  111.  176,  80  Am.  St.  Eep.  176,  58  N.  E. 
1007,  52  L.  E.  A.  283;  State  v.  Julow,  129  Mo.  163,  50  Am.  St.  Eep. 
443,  31  S.  W.  781,  29  L.  E.  A.  257;  State  v.  Gardner,  5S  Ohio  St.  599, 
65  Am.  St.  Eep.  785,  51  N.  E.  36,  41  L.  E.  A.  689. 

130  Low  v.  Eees  Printing  Co.,  41  Neb.  127,  43  Am.  St.  Eep.  .670, 
59  N.  W.  362,  24  L.  E.  A.  702;  Eitchie  v.  People,  155  111.  98,  46  Am. 
St.  Eep.  315,  40  N.  E.  454,  29  L.  E.  A.  79;  In  re  Morgan,  26  Colo. 
415,  77  Am.  St.  Eep.  269,  58  Pac.  1071,  47  L.  E.  A.  52;  Seattle  v. 
Smyth,  22  Wash.  237,  79  Am.  St.  Eep.  939,  60  Pac.  1120;  Cleveland 
v.  Clements  Bros.  etc.  Co.,  67  Ohio  St.  197,  93  Am.  St.  Eep.  670,  65 
N.  E.  885,  59  L.  E.  A.  775;  Harding  v.  People,  160  111.  459,  52  Am. 
St.  Eep.  344,  43  N.  E.  624;  People  v.  Coler,  166  N.  Y.  1,  82  Am.  St. 
Eep.  605,  59  N.  E.  716,  52  L.  E.  A.  814. 


*For  discussion   of  the  principles  of  eminent   domain  as  exercised 
by  state  and  federal  governments,  see  ante,  p.  650  et  seq. 


713  Due  Process  of  Law.  Am.  XIV,  §  1 

which  such  weighing  is  dispensed  with,131  and  this  is  true  of 
a  statute  making  it  unlawful  for  the  owner,  operator  or  lessee 
of  a  mine  to  screen  coal  before  weighing,132  or  of  a  statute  pro- 
hibiting persons  engaged  in  mining  from  issuing  scrip  to  their 
employees,  or  from  selling  merchandise  or  supplies  to  employees 
at  a  higher  rate  than  the  cash  price.133  A  statute  declaring  it 
to  be  criminal  for  an  employer  to  attempt  to  prevent  his  em- 
ployees from  joining  labor  unions  is  void  for  the  same  rea- 
son;134 as  also  is  a  statute  prohibiting  the  employment  of  alien 
laborers;135  or  a  statute  creating  a  free  employment  bureau 
and  forbidding  the  furnishing  of  lists  to  employers  whose  em- 
ployees are  on  strike.136 

While  the  legislature  may  deny  the  right  to  contract  to  those 
who  are  incapable  of  binding  themselves  by  contract,  and  may 
prohibit  the  making  of  contracts  when  it  becomes  necessary  to 
protect  the  rights  of  others,137  yet  the  power  in  this  respect 
is  always  based  upon  some  condition  and  not  upon  absolute 
right;  the  contracts  in  question  must  be  affected  by  some  public 
interest,  or  a  duty  to  society  or  government.138 

Any  restriction  or  interruption  of  the  common  or  necessary 
use  of  property  that  destroys  its  value  or  strips  it  of  its  at- 
tributes is  contrary  to  this  amendment,139  but  appropriate  reg- 

131  Millett  v.  People,  117  111.  294,  57  Am.  Rep.  869,  7  N.  E.  631. 

132  In  re  Preston,  63  Ohio  St.  428,  81  Am.  St.  Rep.  642,  59  N.  E. 
101,  52  L.  R.  A.  523. 

133  State  v.  Goodwill,  33  W.  Va.  179,  25  Am.  St.  Rep.  863,  10  S.  E. 
285,  6  L.  R.  A.  621;  State  v.  Fire  Creek  etc.  Co.,  33  W.  Va.  188,  25 
Am.  St.  Rep.  891,  10'  S.  E.  288,  6  L.  R.  A.  359. 

134  Gillespie  v.  People,  188  111.  176,  80  Am.  St.  Rep.  176,  58  N.  E. 
1007,  52  L.  R.  A.  283. 

135  Ex  parte  Kuback,  85  Cal.  274,  20  Am.  St.  Rep.  226,  24  Pae. 
737;  Juniata  Limestone  Co.  v.  Pagley,  187  Pa.  St.  193,  67  Am.  St. 
Rep.  579,  40  Atl.  977. 

136  Matthews  v.  People,  202  111.  389,  95  Am.  St.  Rep.  241,  67  N. 
E.  28. 

137  Leep  v.  St.  Louis  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  58  Ark.  407,  41  Am.  St.  Rep. 
109,  25  S.  W.  75,  23  L.  R.  A.  264. 

138  Low  v.  Rees  Printing  Co.,  41  Neb.  127,  43  Am.  St.  Rep.  670, 
59  N.  W.  362,  24  L.  R.  A.  702;  Leep  v.  St.  Louis  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  53 
Ark.  407,  41  Am.  St.  Rep.  109,  25  S.  W.  75,  23  L.  R.  A.  264. 

139  Jamesvilie     v.  Carpenter,  77  Wis.  288,  20  Am.  St.  Rep.  123,  46 


Am.  XIV,  §  1  Due  Process  of  Law.  714 

illation  of  the  use  of  property  is  not  a  taking  of  property  with- 
out due  process  of  law,140  and  legislation  is  not  open  to  ob- 
jection if  it  be  general  in  its  operation  on  the  subjects  to 
which  it  relates  and  is  enforceable  in  the  usual  mode  by  pro- 
cess or  proceedings  applicable  to  the  nature  of  the  case.141 

The  levy  of  a  tax,  however  great  the  hardship  or  unjust  the 
burden,  is  not  a  taking  of  property  without  due  process  of 
law.142  Taxation  proceedings  are  not  necessarily  judicial,  and 
due  process  of  law,  as  applied  to  that  subject,  does  not  imply 
the  right  to  such  notice  and  hearing  as  are  essential  to  the 
validity  of  judicial  proceedings,143  and  whenever,  by  state  au- 
thority, a  charge  is  imposed  upon  property  for  public  use,  and 
a  mode  provided  to  adjudicate  the  charge  in  the  courts  after 
notice  and  a  hearing  of  a  contest,  a  judgment  is  due  process 
of  law,  however  obnoxious  for  other  reasons.144  It  is  not  neces- 
sary that  a  property  owner  shall  have  notice  of  every  step  in 
the  proceedings  for  assessment,  if  he  have  opportunity  to  be 
heard  as  to  its  ultimate  validity.145 

The  manner  of  notice  and  the  specific  period  of  time  in  the 
proceedings  when  a  property  owner  may  be  heard  are  not 
material  if  reasonable  opportunity  be  afforded  to  contest.140 

N.  W.  128,  8  L.  E.  A.  808;  People  v.  Hawkins,  157  N.  Y.  1,  68  Am. 
St.  Eep.  736,  51  N.  E.  257,  42  L.  K.  A.  490. 

140  Munn  v.  Illinois,  94  U.  S.  125,  24  L.  ed.  77;  Railroad  Co.  v. 
Richmond,  96  IT.  S.  529,  24  L.  ed.  734. 

141  Dent  v.  West  Virginia,  129  U.  S.  124,  9  S.  Ct.  231,  32  L.  ed. 
623. 

142  Forsythe  v.  City  of  Hammond,  68  Fed.  774. 

143  Kentucky  Railroad  Tax  Cases,  115  U.  S.  331,  6  S.  Ct.  57,  29 
L.  ed.  414;  McMillen  v.  Anderson,  95  U.  S.  41,  24  L.  ed.  335. 

144  Davidson  v.  New  Orleans,  96  U.  S.  104,  24  L.  ed.  616;  Lent  v. 
Tillson,  140  U.  S.  327,  11  S.  Ct.  825,  35  L.  ed.  419;  Fallbrook  Irr. 
Dist.  v.  Bradley,  164  U.  S.  168,  17  S.  Ct.  56,  41  L.  ed.  369. 

145  Gallup  v.  Schmidt,  183  IT.  S.  307,  22  S.  Ct.  162,  46  L.  ed.  207; 
Bauman  v.  Ross,  167  U.  S.  590,  17  S.  Ct.  966,  42  L.  ed.  270;  Voigt  v. 
Detroit,  184  U.  S.  122,  22  S.  Ct.  337,  46  L.  ed.  459. 

146  King  v.  Portland,  184  U.  S.  70,  22  S.  Ct.  290,  46  L.  ed.  431; 
Pittsburgh  etc.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Backus,  154  U.  S.  421,  14  S.  Ct.  1114,  38 
L.  ed.  1031;  Glidden  v.  Harrington,  189  U.  S.  255,  23  S.  Ct.  574.  47 
L.  ed.  798;  Sanford  v.  Poe,  69  Fed.  546;  McLeod  v.  Receveur,  71  Fed. 


715  Due  Process  of  Law.  Am.  XIV,  §  1 

But  assessors,  in  determining  the  value  of  property  for  taxa- 
tion, act  judicially,  and  notice  and  opportunity  to  contest  such 
determination  are  essential  to  due  process;147  and  where  an 
assessment  is  arbitrary,  and  without  an  opportunity  for  hear- 
ing, the  proceeding  is  unconstitutional.148  The  fact  that  a 
statute  provides  that  no  review  of  an  assessment  can  be  had 
until  court  proceedings  for  the  collection  of  the  tax  does  not 
make  the  tax  obnoxious  to  this  amendment.149  A  law  authoriz- 
ing the  governor  to  appoint  a  board  to  reassess  property  which 
has  been  grossly  undervalued  does  not  violate  this  amendment 
in  not  providing  for  a  hearing  before  the  governor,  if  a  hear- 
ing may  be  had  before  the  board.150 

The  method  of  collecting  taxes  in  vogue,  although  not  judicial 
in  its  nature,  affords  due  process  of  law,151  and  summary 
remedies  used  in  the  collection  of  taxes  may  be  due  process  of 
law,  although  they  could  not  be  applied  to  cases  of  a  judicial 
character.152  The  commitment  of  the  person  of  a  taxpayer 
after  other  means  of  collection  have  failed  is  not  violative  of 
the  Fourteenth  Amendment,153  nor  is  a  state  law  trebling  taxa- 
tion as  a  penalty  for  fraud.154 

455;  In  re  McPherson,  104  N.Y.  306,  58  Am.  Eep.  502,  10  N.  E.  685 •" 
People  v.  Turner,  117  N.  Y.  227,  15  Am.  St.  Eep.  498,  22  N.  E.  1022. 

147  Hagar  v.  Reclamation  District,  111  U.  S.  710,  4  S.  Ct.  663,  28 
L.  ed.  569,  affirming  6  Saw.  567,  4  Fed.  366;  Winona  etc.  Land  Co. 
v.  Minnesota,  159  U.  S.  537,  16  S.   Ct.  83,  40  L.  ed.  247. 

148  Railroad  Tax  Cases,  13  Fed.  722;  San  Francisco  etc.  Ry.  Co. 
v.  Dinwiddie,  8  Saw.  312,  13  Fed.  789;  Burns  v.  Multnomah  Ry.  Co., 
8  Saw.  543,  15  Fed.  177;  Auer  v.  City  of  Dubuque,  65  Iowa,  650,  22 
N.  W.  914. 

149  Winona  etc.  Land  Co.  v.  Minnesota,  159  U.  S.  538,  16  S.  Cr. 
83,  40  L.  ed.  247. 

150  Weyerhaueser  v.  Minnesota,  176  U.  S.  555,  20  S.  Ct.  485,  44 
L.  ed.  583. 

151  Kelly  v.  Pittsburgh,  104  U.  S.  80,  26  L.  ed.  658. 

152  King  v.  Mullins,  171  U.  S.  429,  18  S.  Ct.  925,  43  L.  ed.  214; 
King  v.  Panther  Lumber  Co.,  171  U.  S.  438,  18  S.  Ct.  573,  43  L.  ed. 
227. 

153  Palmer  v.  M^Mahon,  133  U.  S.  670,  10  S.  Ct.  324,  33  L.  ed.  772. 

154  State  v.  Moss,  69  Mo.  495. 


Am.  XIV,  §  1  Due  Process  of  Law.  716 
Police  Regulations  as  Denying  Due  Process.* 


The  prohibition  against  deprivation  of  life,  liberty  or  prop- 
erty without  due  process  of  law  does  not  restrict  the  power  of 
the  states  to  enact  regulations  respecting  the  public  health  and 
safety.155  For  the  public  good,  individuals  must  suffer  the 
destruction  of  property  or  even  life,  rights  of  necessity  being 
part  of  the  law,156  and  the  possession  and  enjoyment  of  all 
rights  are  subject  to  such  reasonable  conditions  as  may  be 
deemed  by  the  governing  authority  essential  to  the  safety, 
health,  peace,  good  order  and  morals  of  the  community.157 
But  laws  enacted  in  the  purported  exercise  of  the  police  power 
must  be  police  regulations  in  fact;158  rights  of  persons  and 
property  cannot  be  invaded  under  the  guise  of  police  regula- 
tions for  the  protection  of  health  or  good  order,  when  it  ia 
manifest  that  such  is  not  the  object  and  purpose  of  the  regu- 
lation.159 

The  legislature  cannot  arbitrarily  make  that  a  subject  of  the 
police  power  which,  from  its  nature,  is  not  so;160  nor  declare  a 
thing  to  be  a  nuisance  without  regard  to  whether  it  is  so  or 

155  Compagnie  Francaise  v.  Louisiana  State  Board,  186  U.  S.  393, 
22  S.  Ct.  811,  46  L.  ed.  1209. 

156  Bowditch  v.  Boston,  101  TJ.  S.  18,  25  L.  ed.  980. 

157  Crowley  v.  Christensen,  137  TJ.  S.  89,  11  S.  Ct.  13,  34  L.  ed. 
620. 

158  In  re  Jacobs,  98  N.  Y.  98,  50  Am.  Eep.  636;  Health  Department 
v.  Rector,  145  N.  Y.  32,  49  Am.  St.  Rep.  579,  39  N.  E.  833;  Ex  parte 
Brown,  38  Tex.  Cr.  295,  70  Am.  St.  Rep.  743;  People  v.  Warden,  157 
N.  Y.  116,  68  Am.  St.  Rep.  763,  51  N.  E.  1006;  Chicago  v.  Netcher, 
183  111.  104,  75  Am.  St.  Rep.  93,  55  N.  E.  707,  48  L.  R.  A.  261;  State 
ex  rel.  v.  Ashbrook,  154  Mo.  375,  77  Am.  St.  Rep.  765,  55  S.  W.  627, 
48  L.  R.  A.  265. 

159  In  re  Jacobs,  98  N.  Y.  98,  50  Am.  Rep.  636;  Bailey  v.  People, 
190  111.  28,  83  Am.  St.  Rep.  116,  60  N.  E.  98,  54  L.  R.  A.  838;  Chad- 
dock  v.  Day,  75  Mich.  527,  13  Am.  St.  Rep.  468,  42  N.  W.  977,  4  L. 
R.  A.  809. 

160  Jacksonville  v.  Ledwith,  26  Fla.  163,  23  Am.  St.  Rep.  558,  7 
South.  85,  9  L.  R.  A.  69;  People  v.  Gillson,  109  N.  Y.  389,  4  Am.  St. 
Rep.  465,  17  N.  E.  343. 


♦Effect   of   amendment  on  police  power  in  general:  See,   ante,   p. 

698. 


717  Due  Process  of  Law.  Am.  XIV,  §  1 

not.161  And  a  statute  which  is  primarily  one  for  raising 
revenue  cannot  be  referred  to  the  police  power.162  But  pre- 
vious notice  and  opportunity  to  be  heard  is  not  indispensable 
to  the  valid  exercise  of  a  state's  police  power;  it  is  enough  that 
persons  affected  thereby  are  enabled,  in  maintaining  their  rights, 
to  invoke  the  protection  of  the  law  by  any  appropriate  pro- 
cess.163 

The  regulation  of  trade,  business,  or  profession  is  within 
the  domain  of  the  police  power;  such  regulation  may  more  or 
less  restrict  liberty  or  impair  the  value  of  property,  but  if  rea- 
sonably calculated  to  produce  the  end  contemplated  is  constitu- 
tional.164 Such  laws  must,  however,  in  all  their  requirements, 
operate  equally  upon  all  engaged  in  the  particular  business.165 

Statutes  regulating  or  prohibiting  the  manufacture  or  sale 
of  certain  commodities  do  not  deprive  of  due  process  of  law,166 
unless  they  are  arbitrary  or  unreasonable.167 

161  Es  parte  Neill,  32  Tex.  Cr.  275,  40  Am.  St.  Rep.  776,  22  S.  W. 
923;  Harmison  v.  Lewistown,  153  111.  313,  46  Am.  St.  Eep.  893,  33 
N.  E.  628. 

162  Village  of  Lemont  v.  Jenks,  197  111.  363,  90  Am.  St.  Eep.  172, 
64  N.  E.  362. 

163  Chicago  etc.  E.  E.  v.  State,  47  Neb.  549,  53  Am.  St.  Eep.  557, 
66  N.  W.  624,  41  L.  E.  A.  481. 

164  Soon  Hing  v.  Crowley,  113  U.  S.  708,  5  S.  Ct.  730,  28  L.  ed. 
1145;  Gundling  v.  Chicago,  177  U.  S.  188,  20  S.  Ct.  633,  44  L.  ed.  725; 
Nutting  v.  Massachusetts,  183  U.  S.  553,  22  S.  Ct.  238,  46  L.  ed. 
324;  Munn  v.  People,  69  111.  80;  St.  Joseph  v.  Levin,  128  Mo.  588, 
49  Am.  St.  Eep.  577,  31  S.  W.  101;  Grand  Eapids  v.  Braudy,  105  Mich. 
670,  55  Am.  St.  Eep.  472,  64  N.  W.  29,  32  L.  E.  A.  116;  State  v.  Snow- 
man, 94  Me.  99,  80  Am.  St.  Eep.  380,  46  Atl.  815,  50  L.  E.  A.  544; 
Price  v.  People,  193  111.  114,  86  Am.  St.  Eep.  306,  61  N.  E.  844,  55 
L.  E.  A.  588;  State  v.  Eandolph,  23  Or.  74,  37  Am.  St.  Eep.  655,  31 
Pac.  201,  17  L.  E.  A.  470;  State  v.  Taft,  118  N.  C..1190,  54  Am.  St. 
Eep.  768,  23  S.  E.  970,  32  L.  E.  A.  122. 

165  Los  Angeles  County  v.  Hollywood  etc.  Assn.,  124  Cal.  344,  71 
Am.  St.  Eep.  75,  57  Pac.  153;  State  v.  Gardner,  58  Ohio  St.  599,  65 
Am.  St.  Eep.  785,  51  N.  E.  136,  41  L.  E.  A.  689. 

166  Beer  Co.  v.  Massachusetts,  97  U.  S.  25,  24  L.  ed.  989;  Barte- 
meyer  v.  Iowa,  18  Wall.  129,  21  L.  ed.  929;  Mugler  v.  Kansas,  123 


167  People  v.  Berrien  Circuit  Judge,  124  Mich.  664,  83  Am.  St.  Eep. 
352,  83  N.  W.  594;  State  v.  Layton,  160  Mo.  474,  83  Am.  St.  Eep. 


Am.  XIV,  §  1  Due  Process  of  Law.  718 

Statutes  requiring  persons  to  submit  to  examination  and  to 
pay  a  license  fee  before  engaging  in  certain  professions  or 
trades  are  valid.108  The  imposition  of  licenses  and  privilege 
taxes  does  not  deprive  of  property  without  due  process  of  law.109 

The  regulation  of  railroads  and  other  corporations  engaged 
in  the  public  service  is  a  part  of  the  police  power.170  So  the 
legislature  may  prescribe  the  maximum  rates  to  be  charged  by 

U.  S.  623,  8  S.  Ct.  273,  31  L.  ed.  205;  affirming  29  Kan.  252,  44  Am. 
Rep.  634;  Capital  City  Dairy  Co.  v.  Ohio,  183  U.  S.  238,  22  S.  Ct. 
120,  4&  L.  ed.  171;  Ex  parte  Campbell,  74  Cal.  20,  5  Am.  St.  Rep. 
418,  15  Pac.  318;  Ex  parte  Yung  Jon,  28  Fed.  308;  Davis  v.  State, 
€8  Ala.  58,  44  Am.  Rep.  128;  New  Orleans  v.  Faber,  105  La.  208,  83 
Am.  St.  Rep.  232,  29  South.  507,  53  L.  R.  A.  165;  State  v.  Wagener, 
69  Minn.  206,  65  Am.  St.  Rep.  565,  72  N.  W.  67,  38  L.  R.  A.  677;  Port- 
land v.  Meyer,  32  Or.  368,  67  Am.  St.  Rep.  538,  52  Pac.  21. 


487,  61  S.  W.  171;  People  v.  Bilsecker,  169  N.  Y.  53,  88  Am.  St.  Rep. 
534,  61  N.  E.  990,  57  L.  R.  A.  178;  Helena  v.  Dwyer,  64  Ark.  424,  62 
Am.  St.  Rep.  206,  42  S.  W.  1071,  39  L.  R.  A.  266;  State  v.  Dalton, 
22  R.  I.  77,  84  Am.  St.  Rep.  818,  46  Atl.  234,  48  L.  R.  A.  775. 

168  Dent  v.  West  Virginia,  129  U.  S.  124,  9  S.  Ct.  231,  32  L.  ed. 
623;  Reetz  v.  Michigan,  188  U.  S.  505,  23  S.  Ct.  390,  47  L.  ed.  563; 
Ex  parte  Frazer,  54  Cal.  94;  Ex  parte  McNulty,  77  Cal.  164,  11  Am. 
St.  Rep.  257,  19  Pac.  237;  Orr  v.  Meek,  111  Tnd.  40,  11  N.  E.  787; 
Eastman  v.  State,  109  Ind.  278,  58  Am.  Rep.  400,  10  N.  E.  97;  Wil- 
kins  v.  State,  113  Ind.  514,  16  N.  E.  192;  State  v.  State  Medical 
etc.  Board,  32  Minn.  324,  50  Am.  Rep.  575,  20  N.  W.  238;  People  v. 
Warden,  144  N.  Y.  529,  39  N.  E.  686,  27  L.  R.  A.  718;  State  v.  Gard- 
ner, 58  Ohio  St.  599,  65  Am.  St.  Rep.  785,  51  N.  E.  136,  41  L.  R.  A. 
689;  State  v.  Zeno,  79  Minn.  80,  79  Am.  St.  Rep.  422,  81  N.  W.  748, 
48  L.  R.  A.  88. 

169  Thurlow  v.  Massachusetts  (License  Cases),  5  How.  504,  12  L. 
ed.  256;  Munn  v.  Illinois,  94  U.  S.  113,  24  L.  ed.  77;  Gray  v.  Con- 
necticut, 159  U.  S.  74,  15  S.  Ct.  985,  40  L.  ed.  80,  affirming  61  Conn. 
39,  22  Atl.  675;  Commonwealth  v.  Fowler,  98  Ky.   648,  34  S.  W.  21. 

170  Railroad  Co.  v.  Maryland,  21  Wall.  472,  22  L.  ed.  678;  Munn 
v.  Illinois,  94  U.  S.  126,  24  L.  ed.  77;  Chicago  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Iowa, 
94  U.  S.  161,  24  L.  ed.  94;  Budd  v.  New  York,  143  U.  S.  547,  12  S. 
Ct.  477,  36  L.  ed.  247,  affirming  117  N.  Y.  18,  15  Am.  St.  Rep.  472, 
22  N.  E.  676;  Detroit  etc.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Osborn,  189  U.  S.  383,  23  S. 
Ct.  540,  47  L.  ed.  860. 


719  Due  Process  of  Law.  Am.  XIV,  §  1 

warehouses,171  railroad  companies,172  telephone  and  telegraph 
companies,173  steam  grist-mills,174  gas  and  electric  light  com- 
panies,175 and  water  companies.176 

But  this  power  to  regulate  rates  must  be  reasonably  exercised ; 
it  cannot  extend  to  the  confiscation  of  property.177  The  estab- 
lishment of  a  rate  which  barely  allows  a  carrier  to  pay  operat- 
ing expenses  and  fixed  charges,  or  a  statute  which   requires 

171  Munn  v.  Illinois,  94  U.  S.  126,  24  L.  ed.  77;  Budd  v.  New 
Yoik,  143  U.  S.  547,  12  S.  Ct.  477,  36  L.  ed.  247;  Brass  v.  North 
Dakota,  153  U.  S.  399,  14  S.  Ct.  860,  38  L.  ed.  757;  Belcher  v.  St. 
Louis  Grain  Elevator,  101  Mo.  192,  13  S.  W.  822,  8  L.  R.  A.  SOI; 
Vega  S.  S.  Co.  v.  Consolidated  Elevator  Co.,  56  Minn.  108,  57  N.  W. 
331,  43  L.  R.  A.  843. 

172  Chicago  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Iowa,  94  U.  S.  155,  24  L.  ed.  94; 
Georgia  R.  R.  etc.  Co.  v.  Smith,  128  U.  S.  180,  9  S.  Ct.  47,  32  L.  ed. 
377;  Ruggles  v.  Illinois,  108  U.  S.  531,  12  S.  Ct.  836,  27  L.  ed.  812; 
Chicago  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Minnesota,  134  U.  S.  461,  10  S.  Ct.  703,  33 
L.  ed.  970;  Lake  Shore  Ry.  Co.  v.  Smith,  173  U.  S.  696,  19  S.  Ct. 
570,  43  L.  ed.  858;  Jacobson  v.  Wisconsin  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  71  Minn. 
528,  70  Am.  St.  Rep.  361,  74  N.  W.  894,  40  L.  R.  A.  389;  Chicago  etc. 
R.  R.  Co.  v.  Jones,  149  111.  377,  41  Am.  St.  Rep.  385,  37  N.  E.  251, 
24  L.  R.  A.  141. 

173  State  v.  Telegraph  Co.,  47  Fed.  633;  Missouri  v.  Telegraph  Co., 
23  Fed.  539;  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Pendleton,  95  Ind.  12,  48 
Am.  Rep.  692;  Central  etc.  Tel.  Co.  v.  State,  118  Ind.  194,  10  Am. 
St.  Rep.  114,  19  N.  E.  604;  Chesapeake  etc.  Tel.  Co.  v.  Manning,  186 
U.  S.  247,  22  S.  Ct.  881,  46  L.  ed.  1144. 

174  Burlington  v.  Beasley,  94  TJ.  S.  314,  24  L.  ed.  761;  State  v. 
Edwards,  86  Me.  105,  41  Am.  St.  Rep.  530,  29  Atl.  948,  25  L.  R.  A. 
504. 

175  State  v.  Gas  Co.,  34  Ohio  St.  572,  32  Am.  Rep.  390;  Zanesville 
v.  Gas  Co.,  47  Ohio  St.  1,  23  N.  E.  55;  Rushville  v.  Gas  Co.,  132  Ind. 
575,  28  N.  E.  853,  15  L.  R.  A.  321;  In  re  Pryor,  55  Kan.  730,  49  Am. 
Bt.  Rep.  284,  41  Pac.  960,  29  L.  R.  A.  398;  Cincinnati  etc.  R.  R.  v. 
Bowling  Green,  57  Ohio  St.  345,  49  N.  E.  123,  41  L.  R.  A.  422;  Mis- 
souri ex  rel.  Laclede  Gaslight  Co.  v.  Murphy,  170  U.  S.  97,  18  S. 
Ct.  505,  42  L.  ed.  955. 

176  Spring  Valley  Waterworks  v.  Schottler,  110  TJ.  S.  353,  4  8. 
Ct.  48,  28  L.  ed.  173;  Spring  Valley  v.  Bartlett,  8  Saw.  579.  16  Fe  1. 
639;  Spring  Valley  Waterworks  v.  San  Francisco,  82  Cal.  286,  16  Am. 
St.  Rep.  116,  22  Pac.  910,  6  L.  R.  A.  756. 

177  Stone  v.  Farmers'  etc.  Trust  Co.,  116  U.  S.  331,  6  S.  Ct.  334, 
29  L.  ed.  636;  Dow  v.  Beidelman,  125  TJ.  S.  689,  8  S.  Ct.  1028,  31 
L.  ed.  841. 


Am.  XIV,  §  1  Due  Process  of  Law.  720 

that  certain  persons  shall  he  carried  free  of  charge,  as  effect- 
ually deprives  of  property  as  a  requirement  that  a  plant  be 
operated  at  a  loss.173 

Laws  reasonably  calculated  to  secure  the  safety  and  conve- 
nience of  the  public,  and  of  employees  of  persons  and  corpora- 
tions engaged  in  dangerous  pursuits,  do  not  deprive  of  prop- 
erty without  due  process  of  law.  Of  this  character  are  laws 
requiring  railroads  to  fence  their  tracks  and  making  them  liable 
in  treble  damages  for  injuries  in  case  of  failure  to  do  so;179 
declaring  that  in  all  actions  against  railways  for  injuries  to 
stock  the  fact  that  tracks  were  not  fenced  is  prima  facie  evi- 
dence of  liability;180  requiring  railroads  to  pay  fees  for  the 
examination  of  employees  as  to  their  fitness;181  making  rail- 
roads liable  for  fires  caused  by  their  locomotives;182  making 
railroads  liable  for  injuries  to  passengers  or  employees  caused 
by  negligence;183  requiring  street  railway  companies  to  pro- 

178  Smyth  v.  Ames,  160  U.  S.  466,  18  S.  Ct.  418,  42  L.  ed.  819; 
St.  Louis  etc.  Ey.  Co.  v.  Gill,  156  U.  S.  649,  15  S.  Ct.  485,  39  L.  ed. 
567;  Lake  Shore  etc.  Ey.  Co.  v.  Smith,  173  U.  S.  696,  19  S.  Ct.  570, 
43  L.  ed.  858;  Georgia  B.  E.  etc.  Co.  v.  Smith,  128  U.  S.  179,  9  S.  Ct. 
47,  32  L.  ed.  377;  San  Diego  Water  Co.  v.  San  Diego,  118  Cal.  556, 
62  Am.  St.  Eep.  261,  50  Pac.  633,  38  L.  E.  A.  460;  Atchison  etc.  Ey. 
Co.  v.  Campbell,  61  Kan.  439,  78  Am.  St.  Eep.  328,  59  Pac.  1051,  48 
L.  E.  A.  251. 

179  Missouri  Pacific  Ey.  Co.  v.  Humes,  115  U.  S.  523,  6  S.  Ct.  110, 
29  L.  ed.  463,  affirming  82  Mo.  221,  52  Am.  Eep.  369;  Minneapolis 
etc.  Ey.  Co.  v.  Emmons,  149  U.  S.  364,  13  S.  Ct.  870,  37  L.  ed.  769; 
Davis  Coal  Co.  v.  Polland,  158  Ind.  607,  92  Am.  St.  Eep.  319,  62  N. 
E.  492;  Barnet  v.  Atlantic  &  Pacific  Ey.,  68  Mo.  56,  30  Am.  Eep.  773; 
Little  Eock  etc.  Ey.  v.  Payne,  33  Ark.  816,  34  Am.  Eep.  55. 

180  Joliffe  v.  Brown,  14  Wash.  155,  53  Am.  St.  Eep.  868,  44  Pac. 
149. 

181  Nashville  etc.  Ey.  Co.  v.  Alabama,  128  U.  S.  101,  9  S.  Ct.  28, 
32  L.  ed.  352;  Louisville  etc.  Ey.  Co.  v.  Baldwin,  85  Ala.  619,  5  South. 
311. 

182  Union  Pacific  Ey.  Co.  v.  De  Busk,  12  Colo.  294,  13  Am.  St. 
Eep.  221,  20  Pac.  752,  3  L.  E.  A.  350;  Stearns  v.  Atlantic  etc.  Ey. 
Co.,  46  Me.  95;  Campbell  v.  Missouri  Pacific  Ey.  Co.,  121  Mo.  340, 
25  S.  W.  936,  25  L.  E.  A.  175;  Mobile  Ins.  Co.  v.  Columbia  etc.  E. 
Cnu  41  S.  C.  408,  44  Am.  St.  Eep.  725,  19  S.  E.  858. 

183  Missouri  Pacific  Ey.  Co.  v.  Mackey,  127  U.  S.  205,  8  S.  Ct. 
1161,  32  L.  ed.  107;  Union  Pacific  By.  Co.  v.  Porter,  38  Neb.  226, 
56  N.  W.  808. 


721  Due  Process  of  Law.  Am.  XIV,  §  1 

vide  both  driver  and  conductor  for  each  car;184  requiring  rail- 
way companies  to  report  quarterly  the  number  of  passengers 
carried;185  prohibiting  the  waste  of  natural  gas  or  oil.186 

Statutes  regulating  the  hours  of  employment  and  requiring 
precautions  to  prevent  the  injury  of  employees  in  underground 
mines  and  in  smelters  and  refineries  are  in  the  same  category.187 
A  statute  making  railroads  absolutely  liable  for  stock  killed 
and  fixing  a  schedule  of  arbitrary  values,  regardless  of  the 
question  of  negligence  or  actual  value,  contravenes  this  amend- 
ment and  is  void.188 

Sunday  laws  are  a  legitimate  exercise  of  the  police  power, 
and  do  not  deprive  of  liberty  or  property  without  due  process 
of  law,189  unless  they  discriminate  arbitrarily  between  certain 
persons  or  classes  of  persons.190 

The  enactment  of  pure  food  laws  is  within  the  police  powers 
of  the  states.191     Accordingly  statutes  designed  to  prevent  the 

1S4  South  Covington  etc.  By.  Co.  v.  BeTry,  93  Ky.  40,  40  Am.  St. 
Eep.  161,  18  S.  W.  1026,  15  L.  E.  A.  604. 

185  St.  Louis  v.  St.  Louis  E.  E.  Co.,  89  Mo.  44,  58  Am.  Eep.  82, 
1  S.  W.  305. 

186  Ohio  Oil  Co.  v.  Indiana.  177  U.  S.  203,  20  S.  Ct.  576,  44  L. 
ed.  729;  Townsend  v.  State,  147  Ind.  624,  62  Am.  St.  Eep.  477,  47 
N.  E.  19,  37  L.  E.  A.  294. 

187  Holden  v.  Hardy,  169  U.  S.  395,  18  S.  Ct.  3S3,  42  L.  ed.  780; 
St.  Louis  Consolidated  Coal  Co.  v.  Illinois,  185  U.  S.  207,  22  S.  Ct. 
616,  46)  L.  ed.  872. 

188  South  etc.  Ey.  Co.  v.  Morris,  65  Ala.  193;  Denver  etc.  Ey.  Co. 
v.  Davidson,  2  Colo.  App.  443,  31  Pac.  181;  Wadsworth  v.  Union 
Pacific  Ey.  Co.,  18  Colo.  600,  36  Am.  St.  Eep.  309,  33  Pac.  515,  23 
L.  E.  A.  812;  Joliffe  v.  Brown,  14  Wash.  155,  53  Am.  St.  Eep.  868, 
44  Pac.   149. 

189  Hennington  v.  Georgia,  163  U.  S.  304,  16  S.  Ct.  1086,  41  L.  ed. 
166;  Ex  parte  Burke,  59  Cal.  6,  43  Am.  Eep.  231;  State  v.  Sopher, 
25  Utah,  318,  95  Am.  St.  Eep.  845,  71  Pac.  482,  60  L.  E.  A.  468; 
People  v.  Bellet,  99  Mich.  151,  41  Am.  St.  Eep.  589,  57  N.  W.  1094, 
22  L.  E.  A.  696. 

190  Eden  v.  People,  161  111.  £96,  52  Am.  St.  Eep.  365,  43  N.  E. 
1108,  32  L.  E.  A.  659;  Bailey  v.  People,  190  111.  28,  83  Am.  St.  Eep. 
116,  60  N.  E.  98,  54  L.  E.  A.  838. 

191  Plumley  v.  Massachusetts,  155  U.  S.  468,  15  S.  Ct.  154,  39 
L.  ed.  223. 

Notes   on    Constitution — 46 


Am.  XIV,  §  1  Due  Process  or  Law.  722 

adulteration  of  foods  or  beverages  do  not  deprive  of  property 
without  due  process,192  and  the  legislature  may  require  the 
seller  of  substitutes  and  of  commodities  liable  to  adulteration 
to  give  notice  to  purchasers  of  the  nature  or  ingredients  of  such 
articles.1*3  Laws  to  prevent  the  adulteration  or  dilution  of 
milk  or  cream  are  valid  ;194  and  milk  venders  ma  be  compelled 
to  submit  their  milk  to  tests  for  adulteration  or  disease,195  and 
to  furnish  samples  gratuitously  to  sanitary  inspectors.196  An 
ordinance  requiring  the  application  of  the  tuberculin  test  to 
milk  cows  is  valid.197  But  the  legislature  cannot  forbid  or 
wholly  prevent  the  sale  of  a  wholesome  article  of  food.198 

Laws  designed  to  protect  and  conserve  the  supply  of  fish  and 
game,  and  prohibiting  their  taking  during  certain  seasons,  do 
not  deprive  of  liberty  or  property  without  due  process  of  law.199 

192  Powell  v.  Pennsylvania,  127  TJ.  S.  678,  8  S.  Ct.  992,  32  L.  ed. 
253,  affirming  114  Pa.  St.  265,  60  Am.  Eep.  350,  7  Atl.  913;  In  re 
Brosnahan,  18  Fed.  62;  Ex  parte  Kohler,  74  Cal.  38,  15  Pac.  436; 
State  v.  Aslesen,  50  Minn.  5,  36  Am.  St.  Rep.  620,  52  N.  W.  220. 

193  State  v.  Snow,  81  Iowa,  642,  47  N.  W.  777,  11  L.  R.  A.  355; 
State  v.  Aslesen,  50  Minn.  5,  36  Am.  St.  Rep.  620,  55  N.  W.  220; 
People  v.  Girard,  145  N.  Y.  105,  45  Am.  St.  Rep.  595,  39  N.  E.  823: 
Stolz  v.  Thompson,  44  Minn.  271,  46  N.  W.  410;  Capital  City  Dairy 
Co.  v.  Ohio,  183  U.  S.  238,  22  S.  Ct.  120,  46  L.  ed.  171,  affirming  62 
Ohio  St.  350,  57  N.  E.  62;  Dorsey  v.  State,  80  Minn.  446,  81  Am.  St. 
Rep.  268,  83  N.  W.  417. 

194  State  v.  Fourcade,  45  La.  Ann.  717,  40  Am.  St.  Eep.  249,  13 
6outh.  187;  State  v.  Dupaquier,  46  La.  Ann.  577,  49  Am.  St.  Rep.  334, 
15  South.  502,  26  L.  R.  A.  162. 

195  State  v.  Crescent  Creamery  Co.,  83  Minn.  284,  85  Am.  St.  Eep. 
464,  86  N.  W.  107,  54  L.  R.  A.  466;  Deems  v.  Mayor,  80  Md.  164, 
45  Am.  St.  Rep.  339,  30  Atl.  648,  26  L.  R.  A.  541;  People  v.  West,  106 
N.  Y.  293,  60  Am.  Rep.  452,  12  N.  E.  610;  State  v.  Nelson,  66  Minn. 
166,  61  Am.  St.  Rep.  399,  68  N.  W.  1066,  34  L.  R.  A.  318. 

196  State  v.  Dupaquier,  46  La.  Ann.  577,  49  Am.  St.  Rep.  334,  15 
South.  502,  26  L.  R.  A.  162. 

197  State  v.  Nelson,  66  Minn.  166,  61  Am.  St.  Rep.  399,  68  N.  W. 
1066,  34  L.   E.  A.  318. 

198  People  v.  Marx,  99  N.  Y.  377,  52  Am.  Eep.  34,  2  N.  E.  29; 
People  v.  Bilsecker,  169  N.  Y.  53,  88  Am.  St.  Eep.  534,  61  N.  E.  990; 
Helena  v.  Dwyer,  64  Ark.  424,  62  Am.  St.  Eep.  206,  42  S.  W.  1071. 

199  Smith  v.  Maryland,  18  How.  73,  15  L.  ed.  269;  State  v.  Schu- 
man,  36  Or.  16,  78  Am.  St.  Rep.  754,  58  Pac.  661;  Allen  v.  Wyckoff, 
48  N.  J.  L.  90,  57  Am.  Rep.  548,  2  Atl.  659;  American  Express  Co.  v. 
People,  133  111.  649,  23  Am.  St.  Rep.  641,  24  N.  E.  758,  9  L.  R.  A. 
138;  Ex  parte  Maier,  103  Cal.  476,  42  Am.  St.  Rep.  129,  37  Pac.  402. 


723  Due  Process  of  Law.  Am.  XIV,  §  1 

Such  statutes  may  forbid  the  shipment  of  game  during  certain 
parts  of  the  year,200  and  may  authorize  the  confiscation  and 
destruction  of  vessels  or  devices  used  in  the  unlawful  taking 
of  fish  or  game.201 

The  establishment,  maintenance,  and  control  of  public  high- 
ways is  within  the  police  power,202  and  statutes  or  ordinances 
may  regulate  or  prohibit  the  use  of  bicycles  on  the  streets;202* 
may  regulate  or  prohibit  the  driving  of  cattle  except  during 
certain  hours;203  may  regulate  the  weight  of  loads  to  be  car- 
ried.204 The  regulation  or  prohibition  of  billboards  along 
streets  and  roads  is  not  a  restraint  upon  the  lawful  and  bene- 
ficial use  of  public  property.205  A  legislative  grant  of  the  right 
to  use  streets  for  telegraph  or  telephone  lines  is  merely  a  li- 
cense revocable  in  the  interest  of  the  public  welfare,206  and  an 
ordinance  requiring  the  removal  of  telegraph  and  telephone 
poles  from  that  part  of  the  street  used  by  vehicles,207  or  com- 
pelling the  removal  of  wires  from  the  surface  of  the  streets  to 

200  State  v.  Chapel,  64  Minn.  130,  58  Am.  St.  Kep.  524,  66  N.  W. 
205. 

201  Smith  v.  Maryland,  18  How.  73,  15  L.  ed.  269;  Lawton  v.  Steele, 
152  TJ.  S.  138,  14  S.  Ct.  501,  38  L.  ed.  385;  The  Ann,  5  Hughes,  268, 
8  Fed.  926;  Commonwealth  v.  Manchester,  152  Mass.  243,  23  Am. 
St.  Eep.  831,  25  N.  E.  119,  9  L.  E.  A.  236. 

202  Jones  v.  Brim,  165  U.  S.  182,  17  S.  Ct.  282,  41  L.  ed.  677;  State 
v.  Yopp,  97  N.  C.  477,  2  Am.  St.  Eep.  305,  2  S.  E.  458;  City  Council 
v.  Parker,  114  Ala.  118,  62  Am.  St.  Eep.  95,  21  South.  452;  Cicero 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Cicero,  176  111.  9,  68  Am.  St.  Eep.  155,  51  N.  E.  758, 
42  L.  E.  A.  696. 

202a  Twilley  v.  Perkins,  77  Md.  252,  39  Am.  St.  Eep.  408,  26  Atl. 
286,  19  L.  E.  A.  632;  State  v.  Yopp,  97  N.  C.  477,  2  Am.  St.  Eep. 
305,  2  S.  E.  458;  State  v.  Aldrich,  70  N.  H.  391,  85  Am.  St.  Eep. 
631,  47  Atl.  602. 

203  Jones  v.  Brim,  165  U.  S.  182,  17  S.  Ct.  282,  41  L.  ed.  677,  affirm- 
ing 11  Utah,  200,  39  Pac.  825;  Cooper  v.  Schultz,  32  How.  Pr.  107. 

204  Commonwealth  v.  Mulhall,  162  Mass.  496,  44  Am.  St.  Eep. 
387,  39  N.  E.  183. 

205  In  re  Wilshire,  103  Fed.  620;  Eochester  v.  West,  164  N.  Y.  510, 
79  Am.  St.  Eep.  659,  58  N.  E.  673. 

206  American  Eapid  Tel.  Co.  v.  Hess,  125  N.  Y.  641,  21  Am.  St. 
Eep.  764,  26  N.  E.  919,  13  L.  E.  A.  454. 

207  Southern  Bell  Tel.  Co.  v.  Francis,  109  Ala.  224,  55  Am.  St. 
Eep.  930,  19  South.  1,  31  L.  E.  A.  193. 


Aii).  XIV,  §  1  Due  Process  of  Law.  724 

underground  conduits,  is  valid.20S  An  act  granting  a  subway 
company  the  right  to  use  its  subways  for  electric  wires  is  not 
invalid  as  a  confiscation  of  the  easement  of  a  company  using 
the  surface  of  the  street.209  A  city  may  regulate  the  stringing 
of  electric  wires,210  and  may  prohibit  the  stretching  of  such 
wires  upon  roofs  of  buildings.211 

It  is  within  the  police  power  of  the  states  to  prohibit  the 
introduction  of  paupers  or  criminals,  and  to  remove  from  their 
territory  any  person  whose  presence  may  be  deemed  injurious.212 
A  city  ordinance  prescribing  the  limits  outside  of  which  no 
woman  of  lewd  character  shall  dwell,  and  containing  the  pro- 
viso that  it  gives  such  women  no  positive  right  to  live  within 
the  limits,  is  a  valid  police  regulation  and  does  not  deprive  ad- 
jacent owners  of  property,213  and  an  ordinance  prohibiting 
prostitutes  from  being  on  the  streets  between  certain  hours  ex- 
cept in  instances  of  reasonable  necessity,  to  be  shown  by  the 
party  charged,  is  not  a  deprivation  of  liberty  without  due  pro- 
cess.234 

The  construction  and  removal  of  buildings  is  a  matter  of 
regulation  under  the  police  power.215     So  cities  may  establish, 

208  People  v.  Squire,  107  N.  Y.  593,  1  Am.  St.  Eep.  893,  14  N. 
E.  820. 

209  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  New  York,  38  Fed.  552,  3  L.  R.  A. 
449. 

210  State  v.  Janesville  etc.  Ry.  Co  ,  87  Wis.  72,  41  Am.  St.  Rep. 
23,  57  S.  W.  970,  22  L.  R.  A.  759. 

211  Electric  Imp.  Co.  v.  San  Francisco,  45  Fed.  593,  13  L.  R.  A. 
131. 

212  Moore  v.  Illinois,  14  How.  18,  14  L.  ed.  306;  Holmes  v.  Jennisoa, 
14  Pet.  568,  10  L.  ed.  579;  Lovell  v.  Selback,  45  Minn.  465,  48  N.  W. 
23,  11  L.  R.  A.  667;  Milwaukee  Industrial  School  v.  Supervisors,  40 
Wis.  328. 

213  L'Hote  v.  New  Orleans,  177  U.  S.  598,  20  S.  Ct.  788,  44  L. 
ed.  899. 

214  Dunn  v.  Commonwealth,  105  Ky.  834,  88  Am.  St.  Rep.  334, 
49  S.  W.  813,  43  L.  R.  A.  701;  Braddy  v.  Milledgeville,  74  Ga.  516, 
58  Am.  Rep.  443. 

215  Wilson  v.  Eureka  City,  173  U.  S.  37,  19  S.  Ct.  317,  43  L.  ed. 
603;  Smith  v.  Milwaukee  Bldrs.  Exch.,  91  Wis.  360,  51  Am.  St.  Rep. 
912,  64  N.  W.  1041,  30  L.  R.  A.  504. 


725  Due  Process  of  Law.  Am.  XIV,  §  1 

fire  limits  and  forbid  the  erection  of  wooden  buildings  therein,216 
;and  may  even  prohibit  the  alteration,  repair  or  rebuilding  of 
;any  existing  frame  building  within  prescribed  limits.217  But 
it  is  not  a  proper  exercise  of  the  police  power  to  provide  for  the 
removal  of  frame  buildings  from  the  fire  limits  without  requir- 
ing notice  to  be  given  to  the  owners.-18  A  law  requiring  the 
maintenance  of  fire-escapes  is  valid.219 

Danger  to  the  public  health  is  a  sufficient  ground  for  the  re- 
straint of  personal  liberty  and  the  regulation  of  property.220 
So  the  legislature  may  enact  laws  to  prevent  the  spread  of  in- 
fectious or  contagious  diseases,221  and  may  provide  for  the 
isolation  of  persons  affected  with  such  diseases.222  Vaccination 
to  prevent  the  spread  of  smallpox  may  be  required  by  law.223 
A  law  may  provide  for  the  destruction  of  houses  deemed  to  be 
unhealthy;224  for  the  drainage  of  lands225  or  that  tenement 
houses  shall  be  supplied  with  a  certain  amount  of  water.226     An 

216  Kaufman  v.  Stein,  138  Ind.  49,  46  Am.  St.  Eep.  368,  37  N. 
E.  333;  Wadleigh  v.  Gilman,  12  Me.  403,  28  Am.  Dec.  188;  City  of 
Salem  v.  Maynes,  123  Mass.  372;  Klinger  v.  Bickel,  117  Pa.  St.  326, 
11  Atl.  555. 

217  Ex  parte  Fiske,  72  Cal.  125,  13  Pae.  310;  McCloskey  v.  Keeling, 
76  Cal.  511,  18  Pae.  433;  First  Nat.  Bank  v.  SearUs,  129  Ind.  201,  28 
Am.  St.  Eep.  185,  28  N.  E.  434. 

218  City  of  Brooklyn  v.  Franz,  87  Hun,  54,  33  N.  Y.  Supp.  860. 

219  Cincinnati  v.  Steinkamp,  54  Ohio  St.  284,  43  N.  E.  490. 

220  Beer  Company  v.  Massachusetts,  97  U.  S.  33,  24  L.  ed.  9S9; 
Fertilizing  Co.  v.  Hyde  Park,  97  U.  S.  669,  24  L.  ed.  1036;  Bowditch 
v.  Boston,  101  U.  S.  18,  25  L.  ed.  980;  Morris  v.  Columbus,  102  Ga. 
792,  66  Am.  St.  Eep.  243,  30  S.  E.  850,  42  L.  E.  A.  175. 

221  State  v.  Speyer,  67  Vt.  502,  45  Am.  St.  Eep.  832,  32  Atl.  476, 
29  L.  E.  A.  573. 

222  New  York  v.  Miln,  11  Pet.  139,  9  L.  ed.  648;  State  v.  New 
Orleans,  27  La.  Ann.  521;  Haverty  v.  Bass,  66  Me.  71;  Cooper  v. 
Schultz,  32  How.  Pr.  107. 

223  State  v.  Hay,  126  N.  C.  999,  78  Am.  St.  Eep.  691,  35  S.  E. 
459,  49  L.  E.  A.  588;  Abeel  v.  Clark,  84  Cal.  226,  24  Pae.  383;  Bissell 
v.  Davidson,  65  Conn.  186,  32  Atl.. 348,  29  L.  E.  A.  251. 

224  Theilan  v.  Porter,  14  Lea,  622,  52  Am.  Eep.  173. 

225  Donnelly  v.  Decker,  58  Wis.  461,  46  Am.  St.  Eep.  637,  17  N. 
W.  389. 

226  Health  Department  v.  Sector,  145  N.  Y.  32,  45  Am.  St.  Eep. 
579.  39  N.  E.  833. 


Am.  XIV,  §  1  Due  Process  of  Law.  726 

ordinance  regulating  the  disposition  of  garbage  is  valid.22'' 
The  legislature  may  authorize  the  destruction  of  horses  affected 
with  glanders  without  compensation  to  the  owners,  but  it  can- 
not deprive  an  owner  of  the  right  to  be  heard  as  to  whether 
the  disease  is,  in  fact,  glanders.228  The  abatement  of  nuisances 
generally  is  a  proper  subject  of  police  regulation,229  and.  a 
statute  providing  for  the  abatement,  as  a  nuisance,  of  a  house 
used  for  immoral  purposes  does  not  deprive  the  owner  of  prop- 
erty without  due  process  of  law.230  Cemeteries  are  subject  to 
reasonable  regulation  by  cities,  but  they  are  not  to  be  deemed 
nuisances  per  se  in  measuring  the  extent  of  the  power  to  regu- 
late them.231 

Statutes  regulating  the  keeping  of  animals  in  cities  are 
within  the  police  power,232  and  an  ordinance  may  properly  pro- 
Mbit  the  running  at  large  of  animals,233  and  the  impounding 
and  sale  of  estrays.234  But  it  would  seem  that  an  ordinance 
authorizing  the  summary  destruction  of   unmuzzled   dogs  or 

227  Walker  v.  Jamison,  140  Ind.  591,  49  Am.  St.  Eep.  222,  37  N.  E. 
402,  39  N.  E.  860,  28  L.  E.  A.  679;  State  v.  Payssan,  47  La.  Ann. 
1029,  49  Am.  St.  Rep.  390,  17  South.  481. 

228  Miller  v.  Horton,  152  Mass.  540,  23  Am.  St.  Eep.  850,  26  N. 
E.  100,  10  L.  E.  A.  116;  Pearson  v.  Zehr,  138  111.  48,  32  Am.  St.  Eep. 
113,  29  N.  E.  854. 

229  Phalen  v.  Virginia,  8  How.  168,  12  L.  ed.  1030;  Fertilizing  Co. 
v.  Hyde  Park,  97  U.  S.  667,  24  L.  ed.  1036;  Sweet  v.  Eechel,  159  IT. 
S.  398,  16  S.  Ct.  43,  40  L.  ed.  188;  State  v.  Heidenhain,  42  La.  Ana. 
483,  21  Am.  St.  Eep.  388,  7  South.  621;  State  v.  Hord,  122  N.  C.  1092, 
65  Am.  St.  Eep.  743,  29  S.  E.  952. 

230  Carleton  v.  Eugg,  149  Mass.  550,  14  Am.  St.  Eep.  446,  22  N. 
E.  55,  5  L.  E.  A.  193. 

231  Los  Angeles  County  v.  Hollywood  etc.  Assn.,  124  Cal.  344,  71 
Am.  St.  Eep.  75,  57  Pac.  153. 

232  Wilton  v.  Weston,  48  Conn.  325;  Cole  v.  Hall,  103  111.  30;  Myers 
v.  Dodd,  9  Ind.  290,  68  Am.  Dec.  624. 

233  Welch  v.  Bowen,  103  Ind.  252,  2  N.  E.  722;  Griffin  v.  Martin, 
7  Barb.  297;  Carter  v.  Dow,  16  Wis.  298;  Cochrane  v.  Frostburg,  81 
Md.  54,  48  Am.  St.  Eep.  479,  31  Atl.  703,  27  L.  E.  A.  728;  Wilson  v. 
Beyers,  5  Wash.  303,  34  Am.  St.  Eep.  858,  32  Pac.  90. 

234  Dillard  v.  Webb,  55  Cal.  468;  Fort  Smith  v.  Dodson,  46  Ark. 
296,  55  Am.  Eep.  580;  Campeau  v.  Langley,  39  Mich.  451,  33  Am. 
Rep.  414;  Wilcox  v.  Hemming,  58  Wis.  144,  46  Am.  St.  Eep.  625,  15 
N.  W.  435;  Stewart  v.  Hunter,  16  Or.  62,  8  Am.  St.  Eep.  267,  16 
Pac.  876. 


727  Due  Process  of  Law.  Am.  XIV,  §  1 

neglected  or  abandoned  animals  would  be  invalid  as  depriving 
the  owner  of  notice  and  opportunity  to  be  heard  in  defense  of 
his  property.235 

Laws  directed  to  the  suppression  of  gaming  are  within  the 
police  power,  and  it  is  not  for  the  courts  to  say  that  the  meas- 
ures adopted  by  the  legislature  are  not  appropriate  to  that 
end.236  Bookmaking  and  pool-selling  constitute  a  form  of 
gambling,  and  may  be  regulated  or  prohibited  altogether.237  A 
statute  declaring  grain  option  contracts  to  be  gambling  con- 
tracts and  the  making  of  them  to  be  a  criminal  offense  does  not 
deprive  of  liberty  or  property  without  due  process  of  law.238 
Statutes  providing  for  the  seizure  and  summary  destruction 
of  gambling  devises  incapable  of  being  put  to  any  legitimate 
use    have  been  upheld.239 

"Persons"  Protected. 

The  meaning  of  the  word  "persons"  as  used  in  this  amend- 
ment is  not  to  be  restricted  by  the  definition  of  the  word  "citi- 
zens" in  the  first  clause.  "Person"  is  to  be  taken  in  its  broadest 
significance,  and  includes  all  individuals  within  the  United 
States,  regardless  of  race,  color  or  nationality.240     It  therefore 

235  Loesch  v.  Koehler,  144  Ind.  278,  41  N.  E.  326,  35  L.  E.  A.  682; 
King  v.  Hayes,  80  Me.  206,  13  Atl.  882;  People  v.  Tighe,  9  Misc.  Eep. 
607,  30  N.  Y.  Supp.  368;  Lynn  v.  State,  33  Tex.  Cr.  153,  25  S.  W. 
779.  But  see  Julienne  v.  Mayor,  69  Miss.  34,  30  Am.  St.  Eep.  526, 
10  South.  43;  State  v.  Topeka,  36  Kan.  76,  59  Am.  Eep.  529,  12  Pac. 
310. 

236  Booth  v.  Illinois,  184  U.  S.  430,  22  S.  Ct.  425,  46  L.  ed.  623; 
Parker  v.  Otis,  130  Cal.  322,  92  Am.  St.  Eep.  56,  62  Pac.  571,  927. 

237  State  v.  Thompson,  160  Mo.  333,  83  Am.  St.  Eep.  468,  60  S.  W. 
1077,  54  L.  E.  A.  950. 

238  Booth  v.  Illinois,  184  IT.  S.  430,  22  S.  Ct.  425,  46  L.  ed.  623, 
affirming  186  111.  43,  78  Am.  St.  Eep.  229,  57  N.  E.  798,  50  L.  E.  A. 
762. 

239  Board  of  Police  Commrs.  v.  Wagner,  93  Md.  182,  86  Am.  St. 
Eep.  423,  48  Atl.  455;  Frost  v.  People,  193  111.  635,  86  Am.  St.  Eep. 
352,  61  N.  E.  1054.  But  see  Lowry  v.  Eainwater,  70  Mo.  152,  35  Am. 
Eep.  420. 

240  Yick  Wo  v.  Hopkins,  118  U.  S.  356,  6  S.  Ct.  1064,  30  L.  ed. 
220;  Chy  Lung  v.  Freeman,  92  U.  S.  275,  23  L.  ed.  550;  Neal  v.  Dela- 
ware, 103  IT.  S.  370,  26  L.  ed.  567;  Soon  Hing  v.  Crowley,  113  U.  S. 
703,  5  S.  Ct.  730,  28  L.  ed.  1145. 


Am.  XIV,  §  1  Equal  Protection.  728 

includes  Chinese  or  Mongolians  resident  within  the  United 
States,-41   and  has  been  held  to  extend  to  alien  enemies.242 

While  corporations  are  not  "citizens"  entitled  to  privileges 
and  immunities,  they  are  "persons"  entitled  to  due  process  of 
law  and  the  equal  protection  of  the  laws.243  But  a  corporation 
not  created  by  a  state  whose  laws  are  complained  of  nor  do- 
ing business  in  the  state  under  the  conditions  prescribed,  is  not 
within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  state  within  the  meaning  of  the 
provision  that  no  state  shall  "deny  to  any  person  within  its 
jurisdiction  the  equal  protection  of  the  laws."244 

A  nonresident  mortgagee  of  property  within  a  state  is  not 
within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  state  within  this  amendment.245 

Equal  Protection  of  the  Laws. 

The  equal  protection  of  the  laws  means  the  protection  of 
equal  laws.246  This  clause  was  designed  to  prevent  the  singling 
out  of  any  person  or  class  of  persons  as  the  special  subject  of 

241  Yick  Wo  v.  Hopkins,  118  U.  S.  356,  6  S.  Ct.  1064,  30  L.  ed.  220; 
Chy  Lung  v.  Freeman,  92  U.  S.  275,  23  L.  ed.  550;  Ho  Ah  Kow  v. 
Nunan,  5  Saw.  552,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6546;  In  re  Parrott,  6  Saw.  349,  1 
Fed.  481;  Soon  Hing  v.  Crowley,  113  U.  S.  703,  5  S.  Ct.  730,  28  L. 
ed.  1145. 

242  Buford  v.  Speed,  11  Bush   (Ky.),  338. 

243  Santa  Clara  County  v.  Southern  Pacific  R.  R.  Co.,  118  U.  S. 
396,  6  S.  Ct.  1132,  30  L.  ed.  118;  Pembina  Min.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania, 
125  U.  S.  189,  8  S.  Ct.  737,  31  L.  ed.  650;  Smyth  v.  Ames,  169  U.  S. 
522,  18  S.  Ct.  418,  42  L.  ed.  819;  Minneapolis  Ry.  Co.  v.  Beckwith, 
129  U.  S.  28,  9  S.  Ct.  207,  32  L.  ed.  585;  Covington  etc.  Co.  v.  Sand- 
ford,  164  U.  S.  592,  17  S.  Ct.  198,  41  L.  ed.  560;  Johnson  v.  Goodyear 
Min.  Co.,  127  Cal.  4,  78  Am.  St.  Rep.  17,  59  Pac.  304,  47  L.  R.  A.  338; 
Harbison  v.  Knoxville  Iron  Co.,  103  Tenn.  421,  76  Am.  St.  Rep.  682, 
53  S.  W.  955,  56  L.  R.  A.  316. 

2  44  Blake  v.  McClung,  172  U.  S.  261,  19  S.  Ct.  165,  43  L.  ed.  432; 
Floyd  v.  National  Loan  etc.  Co.,  49  W.  Va.  327,  87  Am.  St.  Rep.  80, 
38  S.  E.  653,  54  L.  R.  A.  536;  Hawley  v.  Hurd,  72  Vt.  122,  82  Am.  St. 
Rep.  922,  47  Atl.  401,  52  L.  R.  A.  195. 

245  Sully  v.  American  Nat.  Bank,  178  U.  S.  303,  20  S..  Ct.  935,  44 
L.  ed.  1072. 

246  Yick  Wo  v.  Hopkins,  118  U.  S.  356,  6  S.  Ct.  1070,  30  L.  ed. 
220;  State  v.  Cadigan,  73  Vt.  245,  87  Am.  St.  Rep.  714,  50  Atl.  1079, 
57  L.  R.  A.  666. 


729  Equal  Protection".  Am.  XIV,  §  1 

discrimination  and  hostile  legislation,247  and  to  secure  the 
same  protection  to  all  persons  in  the  same  place  and  under 
like  circumstances.248  The  phrase  "equal  protection  of  the 
laws"  means  equal  right  to  resort  to  the  courts  for  the  redress 
of  wrongs  and  the  enforcement  of  rights,  and  exemption  from 
unequal  burdens  or  exactions  of  any  kind;249  it  implies  not 
only  equal  accessibility  to  the  courts  for  the  prevention  or  re- 
dress of  wrongs  and  the  enforcement  of  rights,  but  equal  ex- 
emption with  others  of  the  same  class  from  all  charges  and  bur- 
dens of  every  kind,250  and  it  guarantees  that  persons  made  citi- 
zens by  the  amendment  shall  be  protected  by  law  in  the  same 
manner  and  to  the  same  extent  that  white  citizens  are  pro- 
tected.251 

When  the  laws  operate  alike  on  all  persons  and  property 
similarly  situated,  equal  protection  cannot  be  said  to  be  de- 
nied.252 So  special  legislation  is  not  obnoxious  to  this  clause, 
if  all  persons  subject  to  it  are  treated  alike  under  the  same 
circumstances.253 

247  Pembina  Min.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  125  U.  S.  188,  8  S.  Ct.  737, 
31  L.  ed.  650;  McPherson  v.  Blacker,  146  U.  S.  39,  13  S.  Ct.  3,  36 
L.  ed.  869. 

248  Marchant  v.  Pennsylvania  E.  E.  Co.,  153  IT.  S.  389,  14  S.  Ct. 
894,  38  L.  ed.  751;  Magoun  v.  Illinois  etc.  Bank,  170  TJ.  S.  293,  18 
S.  Ct.  594,  42  L.  ed.  1037;  Steed  v.  Harvey,  18  Utah,  367,  72  Am. 
St.  Eep.  789,  54  Pac.  1011. 

249  Bailroad  Tax  Cases,  13  Fed.  722,  18  Fed.  385. 

250  Virginia  v.  Eives,  100  U.  S.  313,  25  L.  ed.  667;  Ex  parte  Ah 
Fong,  3   Saw.   144,  Fed.   Cas.  No.   102. 

251  Slaughter-house  Cases,  16  Wall.  36,  21  L.  ed.  394. 

252  Wurts  v.  Hoagland,  114  U.  S.  615,  5  S.  Ct.  1086,  29  L.  ed.  229; 
Duncan  v.  Missouri,  152  TJ.  S.  382,  14  S.  Ct.  570,  38  L.  ed.  485;  El- 
dridge  v.  Trezevant,  160  TJ.  S.  469,  16  S.  Ct.  345,  40  L.  ed.  490;  Low© 
v.  Kansas,  163  TJ.  S.  88,  16  S.  Ct.  1031,  41  L.  ed.  78. 

253  Missouri  Ey.  Co.  v.  Mackey,  127  TJ.  S.  209,  8  S.  Ct.  1161,  32 
L.  ed.  107;  Pacific  Express  Co.  v.  Seibert,  142  TJ.  S.  352,  12  S.  Ct. 
250,  35  L.  ed.  1035;  Anglo-American  etc.  Co.  v.  Davis  etc.  Co.,  163 
N.  Y.  506,  88  Am.  St.  Eep.  608,  62  N.  E.  587;  Town  Council  v.  Press- 
ley,  33  S.  C.  56,  26  Am.  St.  Eep.  659,  11  S.  E.  545;  Allen  v.  Pioneer 
Press  Co.,  40  Minn.  117,  12  Am.  St.  Eep.  707,  41  N.  W.  936,  3  L. 
E.  A.  532;  State  v.  Garbraski,  111  Iowa,  496,  82  Am.  St.  Eep.  524, 
82  N.  W.  959. 


Am.  XIV,  §  1  Equal  Protection.  730 

The  fact  that  a  law  confers  upon  jury  commissioners  judicial 
powers  in  the  selection  of  citizens  for  jury  service  does  not  con- 
flict with  this  clause  of  the  amendment,254  and  the  omission 
or  refusal  of  such  officers  to  include  negro  citizens  in  a  list 
from  which  jurors  might  be  drawn  is  not,  as  to  a  negro  later 
brought  to  trial,  a  denial  of  the  equal  protection  of  the  laws;255 
but  this  protection  is  denied  by  a  law  excluding  persons  of  the 
African  race  from  a  grand  jury  which  finds  an  indictment 
against  a  negro.256  So  also  a  statute  which  excludes  negroes 
from  sitting  on  trial  juries  because  of  their  color  violates  the 
equal  protection  clause;257  but  a  law  denying  to  Mongolians 
the  right  to  serve  as  jurors  has  been  held  to  be  valid.258  The 
denial  of  a  motion  to  quash  an  indictment  against  a  negro  on 
the  ground  that  all  negroes  were  excluded  from  the  grand  jury 
on  account  of  race  or  color,  without  hearing  his  evidence  on 
that  point,  denies  him  equal  protection;259  but  this  is  not  true 
of  the  denial  of  a  motion  by  a  negro  that  some  portion  of  the 
trial  jury  be  selected  from  his  own  race;  the  clause  does  not 
require  a  mixed  jury  in  a  particular  case.260 

A  statute  excluding  colored  children  from  the  benefits  of  the 
public  school  system,  •  denies  them  the  equal  protection  of  the 
laws,261  but  a  statute  providing  for  the  education  of  colored 
children  and.  white  children  in  separate  schools  is  a  matter  of 
domestic  policy  which  is  within  the  discretion  of  the  legisla- 

254  Murray  v.  Louisiana,  163  U.  S.  101,  16  S.  Ct.  990,  41  L.  ed.  87. 

255  Smith  v.  State  of  Mississippi,  162  U.  S.  592,  16  S.  Ct.  900,  40 
L.  ed.  1082. 

256  Carter  v.  Texas,  177  U.  S.  447,  20  S.  Ct.  687,  44  L.  ed.  839; 
Bush  v.  Kentucky,  107  U.  S.  117,  1  S.  Ct.  625,  27  L.  ed.  354. 

257  Strauder  v.  West  Virginia,  100  U.  S.  309,  25  L.  ed.  664;  Neal 
v.  Delaware,  103  U.  S.  386,  26  L.  ed.  567;  Green  v.  State,  73  Ala.  26; 
Commonwealth  v.  Johnson,  78  Ky.  509. 

258  State  v.  Ah  Chew,  16  Nev.  50,  40  Am.  Rep.  488. 

259  Castleberry  v.  State,  69  Ark.  346,  86  Am.  St.  Rep,  197,  63  S. 
W.  670. 

260  Virginia  v.  Rives,  100  U.  S.  313,  25  L.  ed.  667. 

261  Claybrook  v.  Owensboro,  16  Fed.  297;  Davenport  v.  Cloverport, 
72  Fed.  689;  Ward  v.  Flood,  48  Cal.  36,  17  Am.  Rep.  405;  Cory  v. 
Carter,  48  Ind.  327,  17  Am.  Rep.  738;  Dawson  V.  Lee,  83  Ky.  49; 
State  v.  Duffy,  7  Nev.  342,  8  Am.  Rep.  713. 


731  Equal  Protection.  Am.  XIV,  §  1 

ture.262  Such  separate  schools  must,  however,  be  reasonably 
accessible  for  colored  children,  and  must  afford  substantially 
equal  educational  advantages.263 

Other  laws  which  are  not  repugnant  to  the  equal  protection 
clause  are :  those  prescribing  different  rates  of  charges  for  pub- 
lic services;264  prescribing  rules  for  the  protection  of  railway 
passengers  and  employees;265  regulating  the  use  of  streets, 
highways  and  parks;266  forbidding  the  erection  of  frame  build- 
ings within  prescribed  limits;267  classifying  property  for  the 
purpose  of  taxation;268  providing  for  the  classification  of  coal 

262  dimming  v.  Board  of  Education,  175  U.  S.  545,  20  S.  Ct.  197, 
44  L.  ed.  262;  Bertonneau  v.  Board,  3  Woods,  177;  Ward  v.  Flood, 
48  Cal.  36,  17  Am.  Eep.  405;  Cory  v.  Carter,  48  Ind.  327,  17  Am.  Rep. 
328;  Lehew  v.  Brummel,  103  Mo.  546,  23  Am.  St.  Rep.  895,  15  S.  W. 
765,  11  L.  R.  A.  828;  Dallas  v.  Fosdick,  40  How.  Pr.  249;  People  v. 
Gallagher,  93  N.  Y.  438,  45  Am.  Rep.  232. 

263  United  States  v.  Buntin,  10  Fed.  730. 

264  Covington  etc.  Co.  v.  Samlford,  164  U.  S.  597,  17  S.  Ct.  19S, 
41  L.  ed.  560;  Louisville  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Kentucky,  183  U.  S.  513, 
22  S.  Ct.  ^5,  46  L.  ed.  298. 

265  Charlotte  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Gibbes,  142  TJ.  S.  394,  12  S.  Ct.  255, 
35  L.  ed.  1051;  New  York  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Bristol,  151  U.  S.  571, 
14  S.  Ct.  437,  38  L.  ed.  269;  New  York  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  New  York, 
165  U.  S.  663,  17  S.  Ct.  418,  41  L.  ed.  853;  Tullis  v.  Lake  Erie  etc. 
R.  R.,  175  TJ.  S.  348,  20  S.  Ct.  136,  44  L.  ed.  192;  Chicago  etc.  R.  R. 
Co.  v.  Pontius,  157  TJ.  S.  211,  15  S.  Ct.  585,  39  L.  ed.  675;  Pittsburgh 
etc.  Ry.  v.  Montgomery,  152  Ind.  1,  71  Am.  St.  Rep.  31,  49  N.  E.  582. 

266  Commonwealth  v.  Abrahams,  156  Mass.  57,  30  N.  E.  79;  Seward 
v.  Beach,  29  Barb.  239;  Jones  v.  Brim,  165  U.  S.  182,  17  S.  Ct.  282, 
41  L.  ed.  677,  affirming  11  Utah,  200,  39  Pac.  825;  In  re  Garrabad,  84 
Wis.  585,  54  N.  W.  1104,  19  L.  R.  A.  858. 

267  Ex  parte  Fiske,  72  Oal.  125,  13  Pac.  310. 

268  Cincinnati  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Commonwealth,  115  U.  S.  321,  6 
S.  Ct.  57,  29  L.  ed.  414;  Home  Ins.  Co.  v.  New  York,  134  U.  S.  594, 
10  S.  Ct.  593,  33  L.  ed.  1025;  Pittsburgh  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Backus,  154 
U.  S.  421,  14  S.  Ct.  1114,  38  L.  ed.  1031;  Gulf  etc.  Ry.  v.  Ellis, 
165  U.  S.  155,  17  S.  Ct.  255,  41  L.  ed.  666;  Adams  Express  Co.  v. 
Ohio,  165  U.  S.  228,  17  S.  Ct.  604,  41  L.  ed.  683;  Magoun  v.  Illinois 
etc.  Bank,  170  U.  S.  294,  18  S.  Ct.  594,  42  L.  ed.  1037;  Erb  v.  Morasch, 
177  U.  S.  586,  20  S.  Ct.  819,  44  L.  ed.  897;  W.  W.  Cargill  Co.  v.  Minne- 
sota, 180  U.  S.  469,  21  S.  Ct.  423,  45  L.  ed.  619;  Florida  Cent.  R.  R. 
v.  Reynolds,  183  U.  S.  481,  22  S.  Ct.  176,  46  L.  ed.  283;  Clark  v. 
Titusville,  184  U.  S.  333,  22  S.  Ct.  382,  46  L.  ed.  568;  Kidd  v.  Alabama, 


Am.  XIV,  §  1  Equal  Protection.  732 

mines  for  the  purpose  of  regulation;269'  imposing  a  penalty  on 
insurance  companies  for  failure  to  pay  losses  promptly;270  re- 
stricting and  regulating  certain  trades  and  businesses  in  the 
interest  of  the  public  health,  morals  and  safety;271  forbidding 
the  carrying  on  of  certain  avocations  on  Sunday;272  forbidding 
the  taking  of  fish  and  game  daring  certain  seasons.273  Laws 
imposing  heavier  punishment  for  repeated  offenses  do  not  deny 
the  equal  protection  of  the  laws.274 

The  exercise  of  the  police  power,  to  avoid  conflict  with  this 
clause,  must  be  reasonable  and  extend  only  to  such  laws  as  are 
enacted  in  good  faith  for  the  promotion  of  the  public  good  and 
not  for  the  oppression  of  a  particular  class;275  it  must  appear 
that  the  interests  of  the  public,  as  distinguished  from  those  of 
a  class,  require  interference,  and  that  the  means  adopted  are 
reasonably   necessary,   and  not  unduly   oppressive   on   individ- 

188  U.  S.  730,  23  S.  Ct.  401,  47  L.  ed.  669;  Farmers'  etc.  Ins.  Co. 
v.  Dabney,  189  U.  S.  301,  23  S.  Ct.  565,  47  L.  ed.  821. 

200  Consolidated  Coal  Co.  v.  Illinois,  185  U.  S.  203,  22  S.  Ct.  616, 
46  L.  ed.  872. 

270  Fidelity  etc.  Life  Assn.  v.  Mettler,  185  U.  S.  308,  46  L.  ed. 
922;  Phoenix  Ins.  Co.  v.  Levy,  12  Tex.  Civ.  App.  45,  33  S.  W.  992. 

271  Powell  v.  Pennsylvania,  127  U.  S.  687,  8  S.  Ct.  992,  32  L.  ed 
253;  Gundling  v.  Chicago,  177  U.  S.  187,  20  S.  Ct.  633,  44  L.  ed.  725 
Barbier  v.  Connolly,  113  U.  S.  27,  5  S.  Ct.  357,  28  L.  ed.  923;  Ameri 
can  Sugar  Co.  v.  Louisiana,  179  U.  S.  95,  21  S.  Ct.  43,  45  L.  ed.  102. 
Capital  City  Dairy  Co.  v.  Ohio,   1S3  U.   S.   246,  22  S.  Ct.  120,  46  L 
ed.  171;  Booth  v.  Illinois,  184  U.  S.  429,  22  S.  Ct.  425,  46  L.  ed.  623 
State  v.  Heinemann,  80  Wis.  253,  27  Am.  St.  Rep.  34,  49  N.  W.  81S 
Campbell  v.  Cook,  86  Tex.  630,  40  Am.  St.  Rep.  878,  26  S.  W.  486; 
State  v.  Buchanan,  29  Wash.  602,  92  Am.   St.  Rep.  930,  70  Pac.  52, 
59  L.  E.  A.  312;  State  v.  Fourcade,  45  La.  Ann.  717,  40  Am.  St.  Eep. 
249,  13  South.  187. 

272  State  v.  Judge,  39  La.  Ann.  132,  1  South.  437;  Liberman  v. 
State,  26  Neb.  464,  18  Am.  St.  Rep.  791,  42  N.  W.  419;  People  v. 
Havnor,  149  N.  Y.  195,  52  Am.  St.  Rep.  707,  43  N.  E.  541,  31  L. 
R.  A.  689. 

273  McCready  v.  Virginia,  94  U.  S.  391,  24  L.  ed.  248;  Bittenhaus 
v.  Johnston,  92  Wis.  588,  66  N.  W.  805,  32  L.  R.  A.  380. 

274  Moore  v.  Missouri,  159  U.  S.  677,  16  S.  Ct.  179,  40  L.  ed.  301; 
In  re  Boggs,  45  Fed.  475. 

275  Plessy  v.  Ferguson,  163  U.  S.  550,  16  S.  Ct.  1138,  41  L.  ed. 
256. 


733  Equal  Protection.  Am.  XIV,  §  1 

uals.276  A  legitimate  police  regulation  enforced  so  as  to  oper- 
ate only  against  one  class  will  be  declared  void.277  A  statute 
making  an  arbitrary  classification  with  respect  to  the  subjects 
over  which  it  operates,  based  upon  no  reason  suggested  by  the 
difference  in  their  situation  or  circumstances  disclosing  the  pro- 
priety of  such  legislation,  is  void.278 

276  Lawton  v.  Steele,  152  IT.  S.  137,  4  S.  Ct.  499,  38  L.  ed.  385. 

277  Soon  Hing  v.  Crowley,  113  IT.  S.  711,  5  S.  Ct.  730,  28  L.  ed. 
1145;  Connolly  v.  Union  etc.  Co.,  184  U.  S.  558,  22  S.  Ct.  431,  46 
L.  ed.  679. 

278  State  v.  Sheriff,  48  Minn.  236,  31  Am.  St.  Rep.  650,  51  N.  W. 
112;  State  v.  Cadigan,  73  Vt.  245,  87  Am.  St.  Rep.  714,  50  Atl.  1079, 
57  L.  R.  A.  666;  State  v.  Montgomery,  94  Me.  192,  80  Am.  St.  Rep. 
386,  47  Atl.  165;  State  v.  Ashbrook,  154  Mo.  375,  77  Am.  St.  Rep. 
765,  55  S.  W.  627,  48  L.  R.  A.  265;  State  v.  Hinman,  65  N.  H.  103, 
33  Am.  St.  Rep.  22,  18  Atl.  194;  State  v.  Mitchell,  97  Me.  66,  94 
Am.  St.  Rep.  481,  53  Atl.  887;  Ballard  v.  Mississippi  etc.  Co.,  81  Miss. 
507,  95  Am.  St.  Rep.  477,  34  South.  533. 


Am.  XIV,  §  2  Representation.  734 


SECTION  2. 

APPORTIONMENT  OF  REPRESENTATION. 

Representatives  shall  be  apportioned  among  the  sev- 
eral States  according  to  their  respective  numbers,  count- 
ing the  whole  number  of  persons  in  each  State,  exclud- 
ing Indians  not  taxed.  But  when  the  right  to  vote  at 
any  election  for  the  choice  of  Electors  for  President  and 
Vice-President  of  the  United  States,  Representatives  in 
Congress,  the  executive  and  judicial  officers  of  a  State, 
or  the  members  of  the  legislature  thereof,  is  denied  to 
any  of  the  male  inhabitants  of  such  State,  being  twenty- 
one  years  of  age  and  citizens  of  the  United  States,  or  in 
any  way  abridged,  except  for  participation  in  rebellion, 
or  other  crime,  the  basis  of  representation  therein  shall 
be  reduced  in  the  proportion  which  the  number  of  such 
male  citizens  shall  bear  to  the  whole  number  of  male 
citizens  twenty-one  years  of  age  in  such  State. 


735  Disqualification  of  Officers.    Am.  XIV,  §  3 


SECTION  3. 

CERTAIN  PERSONS  DISQUALIFIED  FROM   HOLDING   OFFICE.* 

No  person  shall  be  a  Senator  or  Representative  in 
Congress,  or  Elector  of  President  and  Vice-President, 
or  hold  any  office,  civil  or  military,  under  the  United 
States,  or  under  any  State,  who,  having  previously  taken 
an  oath,  as  a  member  of  Congress,  or  as  an  officer  of  the 
United  States,  or  as  a  member  of  any  State  legislature, 
or  as  an  executive  or  judicial  officer  of  any  State,  to  sup- 
port the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  shall  have 
engaged  in  insurrection  or  rebellion  against  the  same, 
or  given  aid  or  comfort  to  the  enemies  thereof.  But 
Congress  may,  by  a  vote  of  two-thirds  of  each  house,  re- 
move such  disability. 

The  purpose  of  this  section  was  to  create  a  disability  to  be 
made  operative  by  legislation  of  Congress.1  The  prohibition 
did  not  take  effect  on  the  day  of  its  adoption  so  as  to  vacate 
all  offices  and  make  all  official  acts  by  disqualified  persons  after 
that  day  void.2 

The  expression  "engaged  in  insurrection  or  rebellion"  implies 
a  voluntary  effort  to  assist  in  insurrection  or  rebellion,  and 
acts  done  under  compulsion  of  force  or  of  a  well-grounded  fear 
of  bodily  harm  do  not  come  within  the  operation  of  this  pro- 
vision.3    The  fact  that  a  candidate  had  previously  served  in  the 

1  Griffin's  Case,  Chase,  364,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5815;  Powell  v.  Boon 
43  Ala.  469. 

2  Griffin's  Case,  Chase,  364,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5815. 

3  United  Slates  v.  Powell,  65  N.  C.  701. 


*  Participation  in  insurrection  or  rebellion,  and  giving  aid  to 
enemies,  as  disqualification  of  Senators  and  Kepresentatives,  see  notes, 
ante,  pp.  59,  60. 


Am.  XIV,  §  4  Public  Debt.  736 

Confederate  army,  but  not  voluntarily,  does  not  render  nim 
ineligible.4  The  acceptance  of  the  office  of  clerk  in  a  court  of 
a  state  in  rebellion  does  not  disqualify,5  but  it  has  been  held 
that  a  person  who  acted  as  sheriff  in  such  a  state  before  and 
during  the    Eebellion  was  disqualified.6 

The  courts  of  a  state  will  enforce  the  provisions  of  an  act 
of  admission  prohibiting  persons  barred  by  this  article  from 
holding  office  in  the  state.7 

4  Privett   v.    Stevens,   25   Kan.   275. 

5  Hu  speth  v.  Carrigues,  21   La.  Ann.   684. 

6  Worthy  v.  Barrett,  63  N.  C.  199. 

1  State  ex  rel.  v.  Watkins,  21  La.  Ann.  631. 


SECTION  4. 


PAYMENT  OF  PUBLIC  DEBT  NOT  TO  BE  QUESTIONED — KEBEL  DEBTS 
NOT  TO  BE  ASSUMED. 

The  validity  of  the  public  debt  of  the  United  States, 
authorized  by  law,  including  debts  incurred  for  pay- 
ment of  pensions  and  bounties  for  services  in  suppress- 
ing insurrection  or  rebellion,  shall  not  be  questioned. 
But  neither  the  United  States  nor  any  State  shall  as- 
sume or  pay  any  debt  or  obligation  incurred  in  aid  of 
insurrection  or  rebellion  against  the  United  States,  or 
any  claim  for  the  loss  or  emancipation  of  any  slave;  but 
all  such  debts,  obligations,  and  claims  shall  be  held  ille- 
gal and  void. 


737  Enforcement.  Am.  XIV,  §  5 


SECTION  5. 

ENFORCEMENT  OF  PROVISIONS. 

The  Congress  shall  have  power  to  enforce,  by  appro- 
priate legislation,  the  provisions  of  this  Article. 

Amendment,  proposed  16th  June,  1836;  declared  ratified  28th  July, 
1868. 

The  federal  government  should  exercise  all  the  powers  it  has 
for  the  protection  of  the  rights  of  its  citizens,1  and  wherein 
the  states  do  not  conform  their  laws  to  the  requirements  of 
this  amendment,  Congress  is  authorized  to  enforce  it  hy  suit- 
able legislation.2  But  while  the  amendment  was  designed  to 
prevent  state  invasion  of  equal  civil  rights,  and  authorizes  Con- 
gress to  adopt  appropriate  legislation  for  correcting  the  effects 
of  prohibited  state  laws,  it  does  not  authorize  direct  legislation 
for  the  protection  of  civil  rights;  corrective  legislation  is  con- 
templated.3 It  has  reference  to  state  action  exclusively,  and 
not  to  any  action  of  private  individuals;  accordingly,  sections  1 
and  2  of  the  Civil  Eights  Act  prohibiting  the  denial  of  equal  ac- 
commodations in  inns,  theaters  and  conveyances,  on  account  of 
color,  is  unconstitutional.4  The  power  of  Congress  to  enforce 
the  Fourteenth  Amendment  is  sufficient  to  justify  the  enact- 
ment of  Eevised  Statutes,  section  641,  providing  for  the  re- 
moval to  federal  courts  of  prosecutions  against  persons  denied 
equal  civil  rights.5 

1  United  States  v.  Cruikshank,  92  U.  S.  549,  23  L.  ed.  588. 

2  United  States  v.  Harris,  106  U.  S.  629,  1  S.  Ct.  601,  27  L.  ed. 
290. 

3  Civil  Eights  Cases,  109  U.  S.  15,  IS,  3  S.  Ct.  18,  27  L.  ed.  835; 
Green  v.  Elbert,  63  Fed.  309. 

4  Civil  Eights  Cases,  109  U.  S.  IS,  3  S.  Ct.  18,  27  L.  ed.  835. 

5  Strauder  v.  West  Virginia,  100  U.  S.  312,  25  L.  ed.  664;  Cali- 
fornia v.  Chue  Fan,  14  Saw.  578,  42  Fed.  865. 

Notes  on  Constitution — 47 


Am.  XV,  §  1  Suffrage.  738 


ARTICLE  XV. 

ELECTIVE  FRANCHISE. 
SECTION  1. 

RIGHT  OF  CITIZENS  TO  VOTE. 

The  right  of  citizens  of  the  United  States  to  vote  shall 
not  be  denied  or  abridged  by  the  United  States  or  by 
any  State  on  account  of  race,  color,  or  previous  condi- 
tion of  servitude. 

The  Fifteenth  Amendment  brings  the  right  of  United  States 
citizens  to  vote  within  the  protection  of  Congress.1  The  right 
of  suffrage,  however,  is  not  coextensive  with  citizenship  of  the 
United  States,2  and  this  amendment  was  not  designed  to  con- 
fer the  right  upon  anyone.3  It  left  the  power  to  determine  the 
qualifications  of  voters  with  the  several  states.4  The  power  of 
Congress  to  legislate  at  all  upon  the  subject  of  voting  at  state 
elections  rests  upon  this  amendment,  and  can  be  exercised  only 
when  a  qualified  voter  is  denied  the  right  to  vote  because  of 
race,  color  or  previous  condition  of  servitude,5  and  it   is  to 

1  United  States  v.  Reese,  92  U.  S.  218,  23  L.  ed.  563;  United  States 
v.  Cruikshank,  92  U.  S.  543,  23  L.  ed.  588. 

2  Minor  v.  Happersett,  21  Wall.  178,  22  L.  ed.  627. 

3  Minor  v.  Happersett,  21  Wall.  178,  22  L.  ed.  627;  United  States 
v.  Reese,  92  U.  S.  217,  23  L.  ed.  563;  In  re  Loekwood,  154  U.  S.  117, 
14  S.  Ct.  1082,  38  L.  ed.  929. 

4  Minor  v.  Happersett,  21  Wall.  178,  22  L.  ed.  627;  United  States 
v.  Reese,  92  U.  S.  217,  23  L.  ed.  563;  United  States  v.  Harris,  106 
U.  S.  629,  1  S.  Ct.  601,  27  L.  ed.  290;  Le  Grand  v.  United  States,  12 
Fed.  527;  In  re  Appointment  of  Supervisors,  52  Fed.  257;  Gougar 
v.  Timberlake,  148  Ind.  47,  62  Am.  St.  Rep.  494,  46  N.  E.  341,  37 
L.  R.  A.  644;  Boyd  v.  Mills,  53  Kan.  604,  42  Am.  St.  Rep.  310,  37 
Pae.  18,  25  L.  R.  A.  486. 

5  United  States  v.  Reese,  .92  U.  S.  218,  23  L.  ed.  563;  Ex  parU 
Perkins,  29  Fed.  906. 


739  Suffrage.  Am.  XV,  §  1 

this  extent  only  that  the  power  of  the  states  is  limited  by  this 
clause.6  It  operates  to  nullify  a  provision  in  a  state  constitu- 
tion restricting  the  right  of  suffrage  to  the  white  race.7 

Persons  who  have  merely  declared  their  intention  to  become 
citizens  are  not  contemplated  by  this  clause.8  A  state  constitu- 
tional provision  prescribing  an  educational  test  for  electors  is 
not  repugnant  to  the  constitution,  although  administrative  of- 
ficers may  avail  themselves  of  it  to  discriminate  against  ne- 
groes.9 

The  supreme  court,  in  the  exercise  of  its  equitable  jurisdic- 
tion, will  not  compel  a  county  board  of  registrars  to  enroll 
a  negro  under  the  provisions  of  a  state  constitution,  where  the 
main  object  of  the  bill  is  to  have  such  provisions  declared  void 
as  a  discrimination  against  negroes;  if  the  provisions  are  void, 
the  court  will  not  require  officials  to  act  under  them.10 

6  MePherson  v.  Blacker,  146  U.  S.  37,  13  S.  Ct.  3,  36  L.  ed.  869, 
affirming  92  Mich.  377,  31  Am.  St.  Rep.  587,  52  N.  W.  469,  16  L. 
E.  A.  475;  Van  Valkenburg  v.  Brown,  43  Cal.  43,  13  Am.  Eep.  136. 

7  Neal  v.  Delaware,  103  U.  S.  389,  26  L.  ed.  56>7;  Ex  parte  Yar- 
brough,  110  U.  S.  665,  4  S.  Ct.  159,  28  L.  ed.  274. 

8  McKay  v.  Campbell,  2  Saw.  129,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8840;  Hedgman 
v.  State,  26  Mich.  151. 

9  Williams  v.  Mississippi,  170  U.  S.  220,  IS  S.  Ct.  583,  42  L.  ed.  1012. 

10  Giles  v.  Harris,  189  U.  S.  475,  23  S.  Ct.  639,  47  L.  ed.  909. 


Am.  XV,  §  2  Suffrage.  740 


SECTION  2. 

POWER  TO  ENFORCE  PROVISION'S. 

The  Congress  shall  have  power  to  enforce  this  Article 
by  appropriate  legislation. 

Amendment,  proposed  26th  February,  1869;  declared  ratified  30th 
March,  1870. 

The  power  given  to  Congress  by  this  clause  may  be  exercised 
only  when  the  discrimination  forbidden  by  the  preceding  clause 
is  attempted.1  This  power  can  be  directed  only  to  the  correc- 
tion of  state  action;  it  does  not  embrace  the  punishment  of  in- 
dividuals acting  upon  their  own  responsibility,  and  not  under 
color  of  law.2  The  act  of  May  31,  1870,  providing  penalties 
for  depriving  a  qualified  voter  of  his  right  to  vote,  being  too 
general  in  its  terms  to  be  upheld  as  "appropriate  legislation" 
to  prevent  discrimination  against  colored  voters,  is  invalid,  and 
will  not  warrant  the  indictment  of  an  inspector  for  refusing 
negro  votes.3 

1  United  States  v.  Eeese,  92  TJ.  S.  218,  23  L.  ed.  562;  United  States 
v.  Arrrsden,  10  Biss.  283,  6  Fed.  822;  United  States  v.  Munford,  16 
Fed.  223. 

2  Le  Grand  v.  United  States,  12  Fed.  579;  United  States  v.  Ams- 
den,  10  Biss.  283,  6  Fed.  822. 

3  United  States  v.  Eeese,  92  U.  S.  221,  23  L.  ed.  563;  United  States 
v.  Sanies,  48  Fed.  82;  State  v.  Strauder,  11  W.  Va.  816,  27  Am. 
Hep.  619. 


TABLE  OF  CASES  CITED. 


A.  &  C.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Allen,  15  Fla.  15 351,  352,  355 

Abeel  v.  Clark,  84  Cal.  22-6 725 

Abercrombie  v.  Baxter,  44  Ga.   36 387,  390 

Aberdeen  Bank  v.  Chehalis  County,  166  U.  S.  449 93 

Ableman  v.  Booth,  21  How.  516 

37,  82,  504,  507,  508,  512,  513,  519,  548,  591,  593,  609,  611,  615,  671 

Abraham,  In  re,  93  Fed.  778 510 

Acorn,  The,  2  Abb.  444 153,  156 

Adams  v.  Boston  etc.  E.  E.,  1  Holmes,  31 331 

Adams  v.  Commissioners,  23  Fed.  212 505 

Adams  v.  Creen,  100  Ala.  218,  14  South.  54 397 

Adams  v.  Bogan,  11  111.  336 316 

Adams  v.  Eeed,  11  Utah,  502,  40  Pac.  724 284 

Adams  v.   Storey,    1   Paine,   79 162 

Adams  v.  Ulmer,  91  Me.  54 102 

Adams  Express  Co.  v.  Ohio,  165  U.  S.  228 133,  134,  135,  731 

Adamson  v.  Davis,  47  Mo.  268 408 

Adamson  v.  Marshall,  47  Mo.  273 406,  408 

Addison  v.  Sauliner,  19  Cal.  82 450 

Addyston  &  Co.  v.  United  States,  175  U.  S.  246 

96,  98,  100,  101,  105,  646 

Adirondack  Ey.  Co.  v.  New  York,  176  U.  S.  349 265,  651 

Adkins  v.  Eichmond,  98  Va.  91 141 

Aetna  Standard  etc.  Co.  v.  Taylor,  4  Ohio  Dec.  180,  3  Ohio  N.  P. 

152 297 

Agawam  Co  v.  Jordan,  7  Wall.  602 185 

Ager  v.  Murray,  105  U.  S.  128 177,   185 

Agnew  v.  Piatt,  15  Pick.  420 168,  170,  287 

Ah  Chong,  In  re,  6  Saw.  461,  2  Fed.  733 645 

Ah  Fong,  Ex  parte,  3  Saw.  144 106,  116,  729 

Ah  Fook,  In  re,  49  Cal.  402 642 

Ah  Kow  v.  Nunan,  5  Saw.  552 697 

Ahl  v.  Gleim,  52  Pa.  St.    324 198 

A  h  Yup,  In  re,  5  Saw.  155 700 

Aiken  v.  Western  Eailroad,  20  N.  Y.  3S0 361 

Alabama  v.  Georgia,  23  How.  510 527 

Alabama  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Kenney,  39  Ala.  307 342 

Alabama  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Baldwin,  38  Ala.  510 392 

(741) 


742  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Alaska,  The,  130  U.  S.  209 540 

Albany  National  Bank  v.  Maher,  19  Blatchf.  177,  6  Fed.  419 94 

Albany  R.  R.  v.  Brownell,  24  N.  Y.  345 381 

Albee  v.  May,  2  Paine,  74 229,  257,  294,  391.  395 

Albertson  v.  Wallace,  81  N.  C.  479 139 

Albright  v.  Smith,  2  S.  Dak.  577,  3  S.  Dak.  631 426,  477 

Aldrich  v.  Kinney,  4  Conn.  380 28,  31,  565 

Aldridge  v.  Tuscumbia  Railroad,  2  Stew.  &  P.  199 229,  257 

Alexander  v.  Gibson,  1  Nott  &  McC.  480 162,  420 

Alexander  v.   Railroad   Co.,   3   Strob.   594 234,   455,   542 

Alexander's  Cotton,  2  Wall.  419 195 

Alicia,  The,  7  Wall.  573 548 

Alkire  Grocery  Co.  v.  Richesin,  91  Fed.  83 561 

Allen  v.  Allen,  95  Cal.  197 422 

Allen  v.  Buchanan,  97  Ala.  403 568 

Allen  v.  Colby,  47  N.  H.  544 197,  475,  625 

Allen  v.  Georgia,  166  U.  S.  141 709,  711 

Allen  v.  McKean,  1  Sum.  276 282,  370,  373,  375,  377 

Allen  v.  Pioneer  Press  Co.,  40  Minn.  117 729 

Allen  v.  Sarah,  2  Harr.  434 573,  648 

Allen  v.  Smith,  173  U.  S.  393 237 

Allen  v.  Wyckoff,  48  N.  J.  L.  90 722 

Alley  v.  Denson,  8  Tex.  297 ' 309,  316 

Allgeyer  v.  Louisiana,  165  U.  S.  590 440,  577,  646,  684,  706,  708 

Allis  v.  State  Bank,  15  Ark.  19 403 

Allison,  In  re,  13  Colo.  530 485,  637 

Almy  v.   California,  24  How.   173 99,  233,  448,  449 

Ambrose  Light,  The,  25  Fed.  416 191 

American  Asylum  v.   Phoenix  Bank,  4   Conn.   177 330 

American  Coal  Co.  v.  Consolidated  Coal  Co.,  46  Md.  15 365 

American  Construction  Co.  v.  Jacksonville  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  148  IT.  S. 

378 547 

American  Express  Co.  v.  People,  133  111.  649 722 

American  Harrow  Co.  v.  Shaffer,  68  Fed.  755 140 

American  Ins.  Co.  v.  Cotton,  1  Pet.  545 188,  194,  471, 

472,  481,  482,  505,  508,  516,  518,  537,  570,  594,  596,  598,  599,  612 

American  Pub.  Co.  v.  Fisher,  166  U.  S.  467 668,  669 

American  Rapid  Tel.  Co.  v.  Hess,  125  N.  Y.  641 723 

American  Steamboat  Co.  v.  Chase,  16  Wall.  531 536,  537,  539 

American  Sugar  Co.  v.  Louisiana,  179  U.  S.  95 732 

American  Union  Exp.  Co.  v.  St.  Joseph,  66  Mo.  675 135 

American  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  67  Ala.  26 

122,572 

American  etc.  Transit  Co.  v.  Hall,  174  U.  S.  82 137 

Ames'  Case,  Taft,  317 53 

Ames  v.  Kansas,  111  U.  S.  471,  4  S.  Ct.  437 498,  514,  518 

Ames  v.  Port  Huron  etc.  Co.,  11  Mich.  139 645 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  743 

Ammidown  v.  Freeland,  107  Mass.  303 27S 

Amnions,  Ex  parte,  34  Ohio  St.  518 584,  586 

Amy  v.  Galena,  7  Fed.  163 326 

Amy  v.  Shelby  County  Tax.  Dist.,  114  U.  S.  393 404 

Amy  v.  Smith,  1  Litt.  326 285 

Amy  v.  Supervisors,  11  Wall.  138 512 

Anderson  v.  Baker,  23  Md.  566 228,  252,  258,  680 

Anderson  v.  Dunn,  6  Wheat.  215 

62,  63,  68,  171,  212,  213,  504,  664,  678,  679 

Anderson  v.  Louisville  etc.  Ey.  Co.,  62  Fed.  48 693 

Anderson  v.  O'Donnell,  29  S.  C.  355 260,  638 

Anderson  v.  Santa  Anna,  116  U.  S.  361 274,  331 

Anderson  v.  Watt,  138  U.  S.  706 528 

Anderson  v.  Wheeler,  25  Conn.  607 168 

Andres  v.  Arnold,  77  Mich.  88   153 

Andrews,  Ex  parte,  14  Cal.  678 620 

Andrews  v.  Auditor,  28  Gratt.  127 84 

Andrews  v.  Garrett,  1  Flipp.  448 s. . . .   514 

Andrews  v.  Hovey,  124  U.  S.  717 503 

Andrews  v.  Pond,  13  Pet.  78 287 

Andrews  v.  Eussell,  7  Blackf.  574 273,  393,  430 

Andrews  v.  Schwartz,  156  U.  S.  275 711 

Andrews  v.  State,  3  Heisk.  165 622 

Andrews  v.  Wall,  3  How.  572 537,  538 

Angle  v.  Chicago  etc.  Ey.  Co.,  151  U.  S.  18 502,  503 

Anglo-American  etc.  Co.  v.  Davis  &  Co.,  169  N.  Y.  506 729 

Ankrim,  In  re,  3  McLean,  285 73 

Ann,  The,  5  Hughes,  296,  8  Fed.  926 646,  723 

Ann  Eyan,  The,  7  Ben.  23 113,  454 

Anonymous,  1   Opin.  Atty.  Gen.  629 116 

Anonymous,  2  Opin.  Atty.  Gen.  266 625 

Anonymous,  2  Opin.  Atty.  Gen.  426 116 

Anonymous,  2  Opin.  Atty.  Gen.  711 470 

Anonymous,  3   Opin.  Atty.  Gen.  188 489 

Anonymous,  3  Opin.  Atty.  Gen.  370 591 

Anonymous,  3  Opin.  Atty.  Gen.  673 486 

Anonymous,  5  Opin.  Atty.  Gen.  288 486 

Anonymous,  6  Opin.  Atty.  Gen.  20 477,  591 

Anonymous,  7  Opin.  Atty.   Gen.  186 489 

Anonymous,  9  Opin.  Atty.  Gen.  524 493 

Anonymous,  14  Opin.  Atty.  Gen.  20 476 

Ansehutz  v.  Hoerr,  1  Fed.  593 158 

Antelope,  The,  10  Wheat.  121 191 

Antoni  v.  Greenhow,  107  U.  S.  780 277,  305,  389,  431 

Antoni  v.  Wright,  22  Gratt.  833 305 

Antrim's  Case,  1  Fed.  Cas.  1063 203,  217 

Appleton  v.  Turnbull,  84  Me.  76 521 


744  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Appointment  of  Supervisors,  In  re,  52  Fed.  252 738 

Appold,  In  re,  1  Bank.  Eeg.  178 159 

Archer  v.  Allen,  1  Bart.  169 59 

A  rchy,  Ex  parte,  9  Cal.  147 575 

Arizona  v.  Duffield,  1  Ariz.  Ter.  69 508 

Arkansas,  The,  5  McCrary,  366,  17  Fed.  384 536 

Arkansas  Valley  etc.  Co.  v.  Mann.  130  U.  S.  69 670 

Armington  v.  Barnet,  15  Vt.  749 82,  341,  342 

Armistead  v.  State,  43  Ala.  340 473 

Armstrong  v.  Dearborn  County  Commrs.,  4  Blackf.  208 316 

Armstrong  v.  Jackson,  1  Blackf.  210 294 

Armstrong  v.  Treasurer,  16  Pet.  281 303,  355 

Armstrong  v.  United  States,  182  U.  S.  243 473 

Armstrong 's  Foundry,  6  Wall.  769 559 

Arndt  v.  Griggs,  133  U.  S.  323 511,  681,  682 

Arnold  v.  Maynard,  2  Story,  354 158 

Arnold  v.  Mundy,  1  Halst.   1 130 

Arnold  v.  United  States,  9  Cr.  120 73 

Arnold  v.  Yanders,  56  Ohio  St.  421 102,  128,  139 

Aron  v.  Manhattan  E.  E.  Co.,  132  U.  S.  90 184 

Ashen,  Ex  parte,  23  Tex.  App.  662 142,  445 

Asher  v.  Texas,  128  U.  S.  132 141 

Ashley  v.  Port  Huron,  35  Mich.  301 655 

Ashley  v.  Eyan,  153  U.  S.  446 130,  132,  143 

Ashnelot  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Elliott,  58  N.  H.  451 .  . .' 382 

Ashton   v.    Burbank,    2   Dill.    435 372 

Aspinwall  v.  Commissioners,  22  How.  365 393 

Astrom  v.  Hammond,  3  McLean,  107 283 

Asylum  v.  New  Orleans,  105  U.  S.  368 301,  380 

Atchafalaya  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Bean,  3  Bob.   (La.)   415 421 

Atchison  v.  Huddleson,  12  How.  298 282 

Atchison  etc  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Baty,  6  Neb.  37 '. .  647 

Atchison  etc.  Ey.  Co.  v.  Campbell,  61  Kan.  439 720 

Atchison  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Denver  etc.  E.  E.,  110  U.  S.  679 79 

Atchison  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Matthews,  174  U.  S.  104 380,  705 

Atkins  v.  Atkins,  18  Neb.  474 428 

Atkins  v.  Eandolph,  31  Vt.  226 318 

Atkinson  v.  Lainer,   69   Ga.  460 91 

Atlantic  etc.  E.  E,  Co.  v.  Mingus,  7  N.  Mex.  371 332 

Atlantic  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Allen,  15  Fla.  637 351,  352,  355 

Atlantic  and  Pacific  Ey.  v.  United  States,  76  Fed.  192 363 

Atlantic  &  Pacific  Tel.  Co.  v.  Philadelphia,  190  U.  S.  160 135 

Atlantic  Express  Co.  v.  Eailroad  Co.,  Ill  N.  C.  472 366 

Atlantic  Works  v.  Brady,  107  U.  S.  200 1S3 

Attorney,  In  re,    86  N.  Y.  569 480 

Attorney  General  v.  Chicago  etc.  Ey.,  35  Wis.  425 338,  365,  366 

Attorney  General  v.  Clergy  Soc,  10  Eich.  Eq.  604 370 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  745 

Attorney  General  v.  Jamaica  &  Aqueduct,  133  Mass.  366 341 

Attorney  General  v.  Jochim,  99  Mich.  358 648 

Attorney  General  v.  Looker,  111   Mich.  508 377,  379 

Attorney  General  v.  Kailroad  Co.,  35  Wis.  563 375,  379,  383 

Attorney  General  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  33  Fed.  129 135 

Atwater  v.  Seely,  1  McCrary,  208,  2  Fed.  137 273,  274 

Atwater  v.   Townsend,   4   Conn.   47 167 

Atwater  v.   Woodbridge,   6   Conn.   223 301,  396 

Auburn  etc.  Plank  Eoad  v.  Douglass,  9  N.  Y.  452 362,  363 

Auer  v.  City  of  Dubuque,  65  Iowa,  650 715 

Auffmordt  v.  Hedden,  137  U.  S.  127 485 

Augsbury  v.  Crossman,  10  Hun,  389 162 

Augusta  Bank  v.  Augusta,  49  Me.   507 432 

Augusta  v.   Sweeny,  44   Ga.   463 287,  291 

Augustine  v.  McFarland,  2  Fed.  Cas,  214 162 

Aurora  T.   Co.  v.  Holthouse,   7  Ind.   59 337,   404,  538 

Austin   v.    Alderman,    7   Wall.    699...' 81,    84,     92 

Austin  v.  State,  101   Tenn.  563 126,  146 

Austin  v.  Tennessee,  179  U.  S.  355 145,  445 

Austin  v.  United  States,  155  U.  S.  427 237 

Avegno  v.  Schmidt,  113  U.  S.  293 559 

Avery  v.  Fox,  1  Abb.  U.   S.   246 651 

Aycock  v.  Martin,  37  Ga.  124 229,  385,  390,  413 

Ayers,  In  re,  123  U.  S.  505 305,  306,  385,  527,  6S7,  688 

Babbitts'    Case,   1   Bart.    116 60 

Babcock  v.  Weston,   1   Gall.   168 167,   168,  170,  287 

Baehman  v.  Lawson,  109  U.  S.  660 483 

Backus  v.  Fort  Street  etc.  Co.,  169  U.  S.  567 660 

Backus  v.  Lebanon,  11  N.  H.  19 342 

Bacon  v.   Collender,  6   Mass.   303 395 

Bacon  v.  Howard,  13  How.  22 568 

Bacon  v.  Robertson,  18  How.  486 337 

Bader,  Ex  parte,  4  Woods,  190 56 

Bagg  v.  Wilmington  etc.  R.  B.  Co.,  109  N.  C.  279 102,  120 

Baggs  v.  Martin,  179  U.  S.  209 512 

Bagnell  v.  Broderick,  13  Pet.  450 597 

Bailey's  Case,  CI.  &  H.  411 42 

Bailey  v.  Barbour,  2  Ells.  679 43 

Bailey  v.  Gentry,  1  Mo.  164 249,  385,  386,  415 

Bailey  v.  Hollister,   26   N.  Y.   112 379 

Bailey  v.  Magwire,   22   Wall.    215 80,   299,  352 

Bailey  v.  Milner,  1  Abb.  U.  S.  263 242,  247,  248 

Bailey  v.  Milner,  35  Ga.  330 245 

Bailey  v.   People,   190   111.   2S 716,  721 

Bailey  v.  Eailroad  Co.,  4  Harr.  389 359 

Bailey  v.  Trustees,  6  K.  I.  491 382 


746  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Bain,  Ex  parte,  121  U.  S.  13 629,  630 

Bain  v.  Richmond  etc.  R.  R.,  105  N.  C.  363 138 

Baines  v.   The  James  and   Catherine,   Baldw.   544 669,  670 

Baird  v.  Byrne,  3  Wall.  Jr.  1 533 

Baiz,  In  re,   135   U.   S.   142 461,   489,  494,  502,  525 

Baker  v.  Commonwealth,  20  Ky.  Law    Rep.  879 637 

Baker  v.  Grice,  169  U.  S.  290 507 

Baker  v.  Herndon,   17   Ga.   586 393,  429 

Baker  v.  Johnson,  2  Hill,  342 82 

Baker  v.  Pope,  2  Hun,  556 299 

Baker  v.   Selden,   101   U.   S.  105 180,  181,  182 

Baker  v.  Westcott,  73  Tex.   134 157 

Baker  v.  Wise,  16  Gratt.  80 235,  449 

Baker  v.  Wise,  16  Gratt.  139 454 

Baker  and  Yell's  Case,  1  Bart.  92 46,  70 

Baldwin  v.  Bank  of  Newbury,  1  Wall.  239 167 

Baldwin  v.  Buswell,  52  Vt.  57 420 

Baldwin  v.  Hale,  1  Wall.  228 161,  166,  167,  168,  418 

Baldwin  v.  Newark,  38  N.  J.  L.  159 273,  317,  398 

Baldwin  v.  Trowbridge,  2  Bart.  46 55 

Ballard  v.  Mississippi  etc.  Co.,  81  Miss.  507 733 

Ballard  v.   Ridgley,   Morris,   27 436 

Ballard  v.  Webster,  9  Abb.  Pr.  404 168 

Baltic,  The,  2  Ben.  399 104 

Baltimore  v.  State,  15  Md.  376 31,  309,  315 

Baltimore  etc.  Co.  v.  Patterson,  106  Fed.   736 538 

Baltimore  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Allen,  17  Fed.  171 305 

Baltimore  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Mayor,  64  Fed.  160 382 

Batimore  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Nesbit,  10  How.  402 

229,   259,    264,    342,  391 

Baltimore  &  Ohio  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Chase,  43  Md.  23 295 

Baltimore  &  Ohio  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Van  Ness,  4  Cr.  C.  C.  595 652 

Baltimore  etc.  Railroad  v.  State,  45  Md.  596 364 

Baltimore  &  Ohio  Tel  Co.  v.  Delaware  etc.  Co.,  7  Houst.  269 572 

Baltimore  Trust  Co.  v.  Baltimore,  64  Fed.  153 292 

Baltzer  v.  North  Carolina,  161   U.  S.  245,  500 271,  307 

Baltzer  v.  State,  104  N.  C.  265 306 

Bamberger  v.  Terry,  103  U.  S.  40 673 

Bancher  v.   Fisk,  33   Me.   316 167 

Bancroft  v.  Thayer,  5  Saw.  502 307 

Bangor  v.  Goding,  35  Me.  73 426 

Bangor  v.  Smith,  83  Me.  425 119 

Bangor    R.  R.  v.  Smith,  47  Me.  34 375 

Bank  v.   Clark,   4  Mo.   59 247 

Bank  v.  Commissioners,  90  Fed.  10 272 

Bank  v.  Deming,  7  Fed.  55 289 

Bank  v.  Edwards,  5  Fed.  516 289 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  747 

Bank  v.  Hamilton,  21  111.  33 336,  340 

Bank  v.  Hart,  67  N.  C.  264 357 

Bank  v.  McVeigh,   20   Gratt.   457 377,   390 

Bank  v.  New  Albany,  11  Ind.  139 289,  317 

Bank  v.   Spillman,   3   Dana;   150 245 

Bank  v.  Supervisors,  7  Wall.  26 89,  92 

Bank   v.   Tennessee,   104   U.    S.   495 300,   348 

Bank    v.    Thompson,    173    111.  599 219 

Bank  for  Savings  v.  Collector,  3  Wall.  495 87 

Bank   of  Alabama  v.    Dalton,   9   How.   520 409,   564 

Bank  of  Albia  v.  Albia,  86  Iowa,  37 85,  93 

Bank  of  Augusta  v.  Earle,  13  Pet.  591 143,  288,  510,  577,  682,  683 

Bank  of  Cape  Fear  v.  Edwards,  5  Ired.  516 349 

Bank  of  Columbia  v.  Attorney  General,  3  Wend.  588 337 

Bank  of  Columbia  v.  Okely,  4  Wheat.  245 358,  405,  642,  643,  673 

Bank  of  Columbia  v.  Overstreet,  10  Bush  (Ky.),  148 161,  420 

Bank  of  Commerce  v.  New  York,  2  Black,  632 85,  91,  92,  93 

Bank  of  Gallipolis  v.  Donnigan,  12  Ohio,  224 357 

Bank  of  Hamilton  v.  Dudley,  2  Pet.  492 672 

Bank  of  Kentucky  v.   Clark,  4   Mo.   61 245 

Bank  of  Kentucky  v.  Commonwealth,  4  Bush,  48 92 

Bank  of  Kentucky  v.  Wister,  2  Pet.  323 246,  684,  689 

Bank  of  Maryland  v.  Buff,  7  Gill  &  J.  448 357 

Bank  of  Missouri  v.  Snelling,  35  Mo.  190 420 

Bank  of  North  America  v.  Wheeler,  28  Conn.  439 561 

Bank  of  State  v.  Bank  of  Cape  Fear,  13  Ired.  75 249,  357 

Bank  of  United  States  v.  Bank  of  Georgia,  10  Wheat.  347 250 

Bank  of  United  States  v.  Daniel,  12  Pet.  33 239,  456,  682 

Bank  of  United  States  v.  Frederickson,  2  Fed.  Cas.  745 417 

Bank  of  United  States  v.  Halstead,  10  Wheat.  53 219 

Bank  of  United  States  v.  Longworth,  1  McLean,  35.  .268,  286,  427,  437 
Bank  of  United  States  v.  Northumberland  Bank,  4  Conn.  333.  ..  .   503 

Bank  of  United  States  v.  Planters'     Bank,  9  Wheat.  906 

545,    684,    686,    6S9 

Bank  of  United  States  v.  Boberts,  4  Conn.  323 503 

Bank  of  Utica  v.  Card,  7  Ohio,  pt.  2,  170 168 

Bank  of  Washington  v.  Arkansas,  20  How.  530 306,  688 

Banks  v.  Manchester,  128  U.  S.  252 178,  181,  182,  307 

Banks  v.  Manchester,  23  Fed.   145 182 

Banks   v.   Mayor,   7   Wall.    16 84,   89,   90,   92 

Bank   Tax   Cases,    2   Wall.    200 92,    93 

Banning  v.  Taylor,  24  Pa.  St.  289 671 

Bannon   v.   Burnes,   39   Fed.   898 84,   211 

Barber,  In  re,  39  Fed.  648 105 

Barbour,  In  re,  46  Me.   9 267 

Barber  v.  Andover,  8  N.  H.  398 341,  342 

Barbier  v.  Connolly,  113  U.  S.  30 698,  706,  732 


748  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Bardin  v.  Northern    Pacific  R.  R.,  154  U.  S.  325 365 

Barings  v.   Dabney,   19   Wall.   11 355,   358,  394 

Barker  v.  Ja«kson,   1  Paine,   559 406,   672 

Barker  v.  Kelly,  11  Minn.  480 642 

Barker  v.  People,  3  Cow.  686 628,  675 

Barker  v.  Pittsburgh,  4  Pa.  St.  49 290 

Barkley  v.  Glover,  4  Met.  (Ky.)    44 415,  416 

Barlow   v.    Gregory,    31    Conn.    268 394 

Barnes  v.  Barnes,  8  Jones  (N.  C),  366 413,  414,  416 

Barnes  v.  District   of  Columbia,  91  U.   S.  546 309,  677 

Barnes  v.   Gibbs,  31  N.  J.  L.   318 564 

Barnes  v.  Hornegay,  62  Fed.  671 35:5 

Barnes  v.  Railroads,  17  Wall.  307 S7 

Barnet  v.  Atlantic  etc.  Ry.,  68  Mo.  56 720 

Barnet  v.  Barnet,  15  Serg.  &  R.  72 392 

Barney   v.    Baltimore,    6    Wall.    287 531,532 

Barney  v.   McCreery,   CI.   &   H.   167 40,  41 

Barney  v.  Tax  Collector,  2  Bail.  654 133 

Barnitz  v.  Beverly,  163  U.  S.  129 422 

Barnstable,  The,  181  U.  S.  467 530 

Barranger   v.  Baum,   103   Ga.   475 581,   582,   583,  585,  588 

Barrett  v.  Alton  etc.  R.  R.,  13  111.  504 373 

Barrett  v.  Benjamin,  15  Mass.  354 514 

Barrett  v.  Holmes,  102  U.  S.  655 1S8,  280 

Barrett  v.  Kelly,  31   Tex.  476 570 

Barrington  v.  Neuse  etc.  Ferry,  69  N.  C.  172 360 

Barron  v.  Burnside,  121  U.  S.  200 515,  578,  684 

Barron  v.  Mayor  of  Baltimore,  7  Pet.  248 

37,  226,   227,  607,  619,  627,  659,  663,  675,  677 

Barrow  S.  S.  Co.  v.  Kane,  170  U.  S.  Ill 528,  530 

Barry,   In   re,   136   U.   S.    609 187,  506 

Bartemeyer  v.  Iowa,  18  Wall.  138 440,  706,  717 

Barthelmy  v.  Johnson,  3  B.  Mon.  90 265 

Bartholomew  v.   Austin,  85  Fed.  364 333,  340 

Bartlett  v.  Kane,  16  How.  272 459,  460,  493,  501 

Bartlett  v.  Lang,  2  Ala.  401 401 

Barton's  Appeal,  57  Pa.  St.  213 309 

Barton  v.  Barbour,  104  U.  S.   133 670 

Bartram  v.  Central  Turnpike  Co.,  25  Cal.  287 362 

Bas  v.  Tingy,  4  Dall.  40 193 

Bass  v.  Columbus,  30  Ga.  851 393 

Bass  v.  Fontkroy,  11   Tex.   698 313,  3S3 

Bass  v.  Mayor,  38  Ga.  875 320 

Bass  v.  Mayor,  Meigs,  421 297 

Bateman's   Case,  Taft,  96 50,     58 

Bates  v.  Rowley,  33  Leg.  Int.  202 165 

Battle  v.  Mobile,  9  Ala.  234 131,  137 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  749 

Baugher  v.   Nelson,  9   Gill,   305 229,  273,  393,   401,  430 

Baum  v.  Raphael,  56  Cal.  361 164 

Baum  v.  Stem,  1  S.  C.  419 162 

Baumann  v.  Boss,  167  U.  S.  574 659,  660,  661,  669,  671,  714 

Baumgardner  v.  Circuit  Court,  4  Mo.  50 413 

Baxley  v.  Dinah,  27  Pa.  St.  247 563 

Baxter,  In  re,  Fed  Cas.  No.  1118 297 

Bay  v.  Gage,  36  Bart.   447 265,  273 

Baylis  v.  Travelers'  Ins.  Co.,  113  U.  S.  316 674 

Beach  v.  Walker,   6  Conn.   190 404 

Beal  v.  Mason,  14  Me.  344 409 

Beall  v.  Burchstead,  64  Mass.  523 170 

Beall  v.  New  Mexico,  16  Wall.  539 601 

Beall  v.  State,  4  Blackf .  107 139 

Bean  v.  Loryea,  81   Cal.   153 419 

Beard  v.  State,  74  Md.  132 253,  254 

Beatty  v.  United  States,   1  Dev.  231 496,  503 

Beauregard  v.  New  Orleans,  18  How.  502 188 

Beavins,  Ex  parte,  33  N.  H.   89 155,   156,  214,  497 

Beck   v.   Burnett,   22    Ala.    822 268,    286,  427 

Beckerford,  In  re,  4  Bank.  Reg.  59 159 

Beckman  v.  Skaggs,  59  Cal.  544 277 

Bedell  v.  Scranton,  54  Vt.  494 167 

Bedford  v.  Eastern  Bldg.  etc.  Assn.,  181  U.  S.  241 384 

Bedford  v.  Gibson,  15  Ala.  521 290 

Beekman  v.  Railroad  Co.,  3  Paige,  45 395 

Beers  v.  Arkansas,  20  How.  529 306 

Beers  v.   Haughton,   9   Pet.   359 188,   402,  419 

Beers  v.  Rhea,  5  Tex.  354 166,  167,  169 

Beeson  v.  Beeson,  1  Harr.  470 414 

Begerow,  In  re,  133  Cal.  349 ' 664 

Belcher  v.  St.  Louis  Grain  Elevator,  101  Mo.  192 719 

Belcher  Sugar  Ref.  Co.  v.  St.  Louis  Grain  etc.  Co.,  101  Mo.  205.  .  .   314 

Belden  v.  Chase,  150  U.  S.  691 550 

Belfast,   The,   7  Wall.   624 535,   539,541 

Belfast,  The,  v.  Boon,  41   Ala.   70 101 

Belford  v.  Woodward,  158  111.  129 91 

Belknap  v.  Board,  94  Mich.  916 59 

Belknap  v.   Schild,  161  U.   S.   18 179,   185,  470 

Bell's  Case,  Taft,  26 51,       52 

Bell  v.  Clapp,  10  Johns.  263 625 

Bell  v.  Roberts,  13  Vt.  582 404,  437 

Bell  v.    Snyder,   Smith,   250 39 

Bell  v.  State,  103  Ga.  397 636 

Bellona   Comp.  Case,  3   Bland,   442 342 

Belmont  Br.  v.  Wheeling  Br.,  138  U.  S.  293 361 

Beloit   v.   Morgan,   7  Wall.   624 274,  393 


750  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Benedict  v.  Thompson,  Walk.  Ch..447 425 

Benedict  v.  United  States,  176  U.  S.  361 516 

Benedict  v.  Vanderbilt,   1   Bob.   194 454 

Benf ord  v.   Gibson,   15  Ala.   541 290 

Benito  Estenger,  The,  176  U.  S.  575 30 

Benjamin  v.  New  Orleans,  169  U.  S.  164 532 

Benner  v.  Dredging  Co.,  134  N.  Y.   163 212,  216 

Benner   v.    Porter,    9    How.    240 500,    548,   594,595 

Bennett  v.  American  Express  Co.,  83  Me.  236 110 

Bennett   v.    Boggs,    Baldw.    76 130,  572 

Bennett  v.  Butterworth,  11  How.  669 522 

Bennett  v.  Harms,  51  Wis.  259 573 

Benson  v.  Bunting,  127  Cal.  532 422 

Benson  v.  New  York,  10  Barb.  223 334,  336,  442 

Benson  v.  United  States,  146  U.   S.  329 210 

Bergemann  v.   Backer,   157  U.   S.   658 513,  709 

Berkowitz  v.  United  States,   93   Fed.  452 635 

Berrett  v.  Oliver,  7  Gill  &  J.  191 292,  387 

Berry  v.  Ewing,  91  Mo.   398 409 

Berry  v.  Haines,  2  Card.  L.  L.  428 395 

Berry   v.   Iseman,   14   Kich.   129 395,  413 

Berry   v.    Eansdall,   4   Met.    (Ky.)     294 407 

Berthelon  v.  Betts,  4  Hill,  577 165 

Berthold   v.    Fox,    13    Minn.    501 422 

Berthold  v.  Holman,   12  Minn.   335 422 

Bertholf  v.  O'Eeilly,  74  N.  Y.  509 139,  642,  647,  649,  651,  653 

Bertonneau  v.  City  Directors,  3  Woods,  177 704,  731 

Bertrand   v.   Taylor,  87   111.   235 408 

Best  v.  Baumgardner,  122  Pa.  St.   17 427 

Bethune  v.  Dougherty,  30  Ga.  770 401 

Bethurum,   Ex   parte,   66   Mo.    545 261 

Betsey,  The,  4   Cr.  443 670 

Bettman  v.  Warwick,  108  Fed.  46 81,     82 

Betts  v.  Bagley,   29  Mass.  572 162 

Beverly  v.  Barnitz,  55  Kan.  466 396 

Bevin  Bros.  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Starr  Bros.  Bell  Co.,  114  Fed.  362 184 

B.  F.  Woolsey,  The,  18  Blatchf.  344 669 

Bibb  v.   Commissioners,   44  Ala.   119 243 

Biddle   v.   Commonwealth,   13   Serg.   &   E.   405 447 

Biddle  v.  Hooven,  120  Pa.  St.  221 408 

Biddle   v.  Eichards,   CI.   &  H.  407 40 

Biencourt  v.  Parker,   27   Tex.  558 69 

Bienville  Water  etc.  Co.  v.  Mobile,  186  U.  S.  222 370,  374,  378 

Bier  v.  McGehee,  148  U.  S.  140 270,   520,  649 

Bigelow   v.   Forrest,   9   Wall.    350 559 

Bigelow   v.   Nickerson,   70   Fed.    121 515 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  751 

Bigelow  v.  Pritchard,  21  Pick.  169 403,  410,  420 

Billings  v.  Hall,  7  Cal.  1 283,  406 

Billings  v.  Riggs,  56  111.  483 398,  402 

Billmeyer  v.   Evans,  40   Pa.  St.   327 . . 413,   414,  42-4 

Bills  v.   State,   2   McCord,   12 245,  247 

Billy  v.  State,  2  Nott    &  McC.  361 488 

Bingham   v.   Cabbot,   3   Dall.   33 536 

Binghamton   Bridge,   The,   3   Wall.    75 333,   334,   340,   358,  397 

Binns  v.   Woodruff,  4  Wash.   C.   C.   48 181 

Bird  v.  The  Josephine,  39  N.  Y.  19 510 

Birdseye  v.   Shaeffer,  37  Fed.  824 • 514 

Birmingham  etc.  St.  Ry.  v.  Birmingham  St.  Ry.,  79  Ala.    465....   324 

Birmingham  Mineral  etc.   Co.   v.  Parsons,  100  Ala.  662 438 

Bishop  v.  Boston  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  117  Fed.  771 531 

Bishop  v.  City  of  Macon,  7  Ga.  200 656 

Bissell   v.   Briggs,   9   Mass.   462 565,  568 

Bissel   v.   Davidson,   65   Conn.    186 725 

Bissel   v.    Heath,    98    Mich.    472 '. 346 

Bissel  v.  Heyward,  96  TJ.  S.  587 90 

Bissell  v.  Jeffersonville,  24  How.  294 309 

Bittenhaus   v.   Johnston,   92   Wis.   588 709,  732 

Bixby  v.  Bailey,  11  Kan.  368 422 

Black  v.  Delaware  &  Raritan  Canal  Co.,  24  N.  J.  Eq.  455 342,  372 

Black  v.  Lusk,  69  111.  76 91 

Blackford    v.    Peltier,    1    Blackf.    36 406 

Blackham   v.   Gresham,   16  Fed.   609 177 

Blackman  v.   Green,  24  Vt.   17 170 

Black  River  Imp.  Co.  v.  Holway,  87  Wis.  587 376,  382 

Blaine  v.  The  Charles  Carter,  14  Cr.  232 538 

Blair's    Case,    Taft,    36 52 

Blair  v.  Ostrander,  109  Iowa,  204 269 

Blair  v.  Pathkiller,  2  Yerg.  407 149 

Blair  v.  Ridgley,  41  Mo.  171 : 252,  258 

Blair  v.  Silver  Peak  Min.  Co.,  93  Fed.  335 156,  505,  569 

Blair   v.    Williams,    4   Litt.    34 384,    385,    395,416 

Blake   v.   McClung,    172   U.    S.   256 143 

Blake  v.  McClung,  176  IT.  S.   64 572,   573,   575,   577,   707,  72S 

Blake  v.    Stafford,  3  Fish,  305 184 

Blake  v.  United  States,  103  IT.  S.  232 486 

Blake  v.  Winona  etc.  R.  R.,   19   Minn.  41S 338,  344,  367 

Blakey  v.  Golladay,  2  Bart.  417 41,     46 

Blanchard   v.   Russell,   13   Mass.   1 162,   384,   389,  417 

Blanchard  v.  Sprague,  3  Sum.  535,  2  Story,  164 183 

Blanchard  v.  The  Martha  Washington,  1  Cliff.  463 106 

Blanchard   G.   S.   Fact.   v.   Warner,   1   Blatchf.   25S 178,  179 

Blanck  v.  Pausch,  113  111.  60 569 


752  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Blanding  v.   Burr,   13   Cal.   351 315 

Blann  v.  State,  39  Ala.   353 384,  399 

Blanque's   Syndic,   v.   Beale,   1    Mart.    (La.),   N.   S.,  429 269 

Bleakey  v.  Williams,  20  Pitts.    L.  J.  66 317,  327,  390 

Bleakney  v.  Farmers'  Bank,  17  Sejg.  &  K.  64 336,  392 

Bledsoe 's  Case,  01.  &  H.  869,  Taft,  95 52 

Bleistein   v.  Donaldson  Lith.   Co.,   188  U.S.  239 181 

Bliss,  Ex  parte,  63  N.   H.   135 141,  576 

Bliss  v.   Commonwealth,   2  Litt.  99 622 

Bliss  v.  United  States,  105  Fed.  508 638 

Blitz  v.  United  States,  153  U.  S.  314 56,     57 

Blocklock  v.  Small,  127    U.  S.  104 531 

Bloodgood  v.  Mohawk  Co.,  18  Wend.   9 82,  331,  395,  659 

Bloomer  v.  McQueewan,  14  How.  553 179,  649 

Bloomer  v.   Millenger,   1  Wall.    350 179 

Bloomer  v.  Stolley,  5  McLean,  158 ....78,  178,  179,  186,  220,  263 

Bloomington   v.   Bourland,   137    111.    534 14J 

Blount 's    Case,    Taft,    74 63 

Blount 's   Trial 495 

Bloimt  v.  Moore,  54  Ala.   360 282 

Blount   v.   Windley,   95   U   S.   ISO 265,   273,   276,  405 

Bluedorn   v.    Missouri   Pac.   Ry.,   108   Mo.    239 120,  368 

Board  v.  Bearse,   25   Ind.   110 198 

Board   v.  Fowler,   18   Cal.   11 328 

Board  v.  Pleasants,  23  La.   Ann.   349 44 

Board    v.    Searce,    2    Duvall,    576 340 

Boardman,  In  re,  169  U.  S.  43 223 

Boardman  v.  De  Forest,  5  Conn.  12 166,  417 

Board  of  Commissioners  v.  Aspinwall,  24  How.   384 528 

Board  of  Commissioners  v.  Merchant,  103  N.  Y.  43 710 

Board  of  Education  v.  Bakewell,  122  111.  344 330 

Board  of  Liquidation  v.  Louisville  etc.  R.  R.,  109  U.  S.  228.  .314,  315 
Board  of  of  Liquidation  v.  McCombs,  92  U.  S.  541.  .  .459,  460,  493,  501 

Board  of  Liquidation  v.  Municipality,  6  La.  Ann.  21 327 

Board  of  Police  Commissioners  v.  Wagner,  93  Md.  182 727 

Board  of  Public  Works  v.  Columbia  College,  17  Wall.  528 562,  564 

Board  of  Selectmen  v.  Spalding,  8  La.  Ann.  87 145 

Bode  v.  State,  7  Gill,  326 447 

Boedefeld  v.  Reed,  55  Cal.  299 162,  164 

Boese  v.  King,  108  U.  S.  386 163 

Bogan  v.  Edinburgh  Land  Co.,  63  Fed.  197 156 

Bogart,  In  re,  2  Saw.  401 200,  611,  631 

Bogart  v.  The  John  Jay,  17  How.  402 538 

Boggs,  In  re,  45  Fed.  475 732 

Bohanon  v.  State,  18  Neb.  77 607,  628 

Bohl  v.  State,  3  Tex.  App.  683 439 

Bohuaud  v.  Bize,  105  Fed.  485 482 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  753 

Bolles  v.  Brimfield,  120  TJ.  S.  763 274 

Bollman,  Ex  parte,  4   Cr.   75 

187,  188,  210,  223,  506,  523,  549,  555,  556,  557,  626 

Bolln  v.  Nebraska,  176  U.  S.  86 710 

Bolton  v.  Johns,  5  Pa.  St.  145 268,  426 

Bolton  v.  Martin,  1  Dall.  296 63,     67 

Bonaparte  v.  Camden  B.  E.,  Baldw.  205 331,  395,  627,  671,  677 

Bonaparte  v.  Tax  Court,  104  U.  S.  592 564,  647 

Bond  v.  Dustin,  112  U.  S.  607 673 

Bonner,  In  re,  151  U.  S.  259 223 

Bogart  v.  Steamship  John  Jay,  17  Hew.  402 538 

Boogher  v.  New  York  Life  Ins.  Co.,  103  U.  S.  90 550 

Boom  Co.  v.  Patterson,  98  TJ.  S.  406 514,  651,  658,  660 

Booth,  In  re,  3  Wis.  125 590 

Booth  v.  Booth,  7  Conn.  350 404 

Booth  v.  Illinois,  184  U.  S.  430 727,  732 

Booth  v.  Woodbury,  32  Conn.  US 19S 

Borden  v.  State,  11  Ark.  544 499 

Boring  v.  Williams,  17  Ala.  516 607 

Boring  v.  Williams,  27  Ala.  14 668 

Bors  v.  Preston,  111  U.  S.  256 498,  524,  525,  533,  544 

Boske  v.  Dominique,  177  U.  S.  468 214,  215 

Boston  v.  Cummins,  16  Ga.  107 229,  257,  273,  274 

Boston  etc.  Corp.  v.  Boston  &  Maine  E.  E.,  5  Cush.  375 365 

Boston  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Salem  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  68  Mass.  1 341,  397 

Boston  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  State,  32  N.  H.  215 369 

Boston  Beer  Co.  v.  Massachusetts,  97  U.  S.  32 

298,  340,  343,  344,  345,  375,  438,  440,  441,  717,  725 

Boston  Wat.  Eev.  Co.  v.  Eailroad,  40  Miss.  360 341,  342 

Bottiller  v.  Dominguez,  130  U.  S.  247 484,  613 

Boucicault  v.  Hart,  13  Blatchf.  50 181 

Bound  v.  Wisconsin  Cent.  E.  E.,  45  Wis.  543 324 

Bowditch  v.  Boston,  101  U.  S.  18 225,  291,  439,  715 

Bowdoinham  v.  Eichmond,  6  Me.  112 312 

Bowen  v.  Blount,  48  Ala.  674 266 

Bowen  v.  Clark,  46  Ind.  410 91 

Bowen  v.  De  Large,  Smith,  100 69 

Bowen  v.  Johnson,  5  E.  I.  112 567 

Bowerbank  v.  Morris,  Wall.  Sr.  118 4S7.  488 

Bowler  v.  Huston,  30  Gratt.  275 562,  565 

Bowlin  v.  Commonwealth,  2  Bush  5 693,  694,  695 

Bowman  v.  Chicago  etc.  By.  Co.,  725  IT.  S.  488 

102,  105,  111,  123,  125,  126,  127,  41S 

Bowman  v.  Croffroth,  59  Pa.  St.  19 59 

Boyce  v.  Grundy,  3  Pet.  215 523 

Boyce  v.  Tabb,  18  Wall.  548 388,  693 

Boyd,  Ex  parte,  105  U.  S.  652 498 

Notes  on   Constitution — 48 


754  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Boyd  v.  Alabama,  94  U.  S.  650 343,  438,  439 

Boyd  v.  Mills,  53  Kan.   604 738 

Boyd  v.  Nebraska,  143  U.  S.  162 

153,  154,  155,  156,  157,  570,  593,  698,  700,  701 

Boyd  v.  State,  12  Lea,  689 140 

Boyd  v.  Thayer,  143  U.  S.  161 155,  569,  570 

Boyd  v.  United  States,  116  U.  S.  621 624,  625,  628,  640 

Boyd  v.  United  States,  142  U.  S.  454 476,  480 

Boyer,  Ex  parte,  109  U.  S.  631 98,  536 

Boyer  v.  Boyer,  113  U.  S.  695 94 

Boyer  v.  Dively,  58  Mo.  510 150,  151 

Boyle   v.   Zacharie,  6   Pet.   348 168,   287,   418 

Boyzer  v.  McMillan  etc.  Co.,  105  Ala.  397 98 

Braceville  Coal  Co.  v.  People,  147  111.  66 647,  649 

Braddy  v.  Milledgeville,  74  Ga.  516 724 

Bradford  v.  Cary,  5  Me.  339 309 

Bradford  v.  Ferrand,  13  Mass.  18 418 

Bradford  v.  Shine,  13  Fla.  393 408 

Bradlee  v.  Brownsfield,  2  Watts  &  S.  271 430 

Bradley  v.  McAtee,  7  Bush,  673 301 

Bradwell  v.  State,  16  Wall.  138 576,  706 

Bragg  v.  Tufts,  49  Ark.  562 242,  245,  281 

Brainerd  v.  Colchester,  31  Conn.  407 300,  303 

Brainerd  v.  Williams,  4  McLean,  122 527 

Braisted  v.  Denton,  115  Fed.  428 533 

Branch  v.  Haas,  4  Woods,  589,  16  Fed.  55 243,  24S 

Brand  v.  Multnomah  County,  34  Or.  79 ... : 655 

Brandon  v.  Gaines,  7  Humph.  130 400,  401 

Brashear  v.  Mason,  6  How.  101 460 

Brashear  v.  Williams,  10  Ala.  630 148,  151,  152 

Brass  v.  North  Dakota,  153  U.  S.  403 503,  524,  719 

Braynard  v.  Marshall,  1  Pick.  -196 167 

Breechbill  v.  Eandall,  102  Ind.  529 117,  179 

Breed  v.  Cunningham,  2  Cal.  361 318 

Breitenbach  v.  Bush,  44  Pa.  St.  313 415 

Breitenbach  v.  Turner,   18  Wis.   140 90 

Breneman,   Ex  parte,  Crabbe,  465 158,   159,  160 

Brengle  v.  McClellan,  7  Gill  &  J.  434 567 

Brenham  v.  Story,  39  Cal.  175 432 

Brennan  v.  Titusville,  153  U.  S.  308 134,  141 

Brent  v.  Bank  of  Washington,  10  Pet.  617 406 

Brewer  v.  Otoe  County,  1  Neb.  373 276,  326 

Brewster  v.  Hough,  10  How.  138 397 

Bridge  Co.  v.  Spaulding,  63  N.  H.  299 360 

Bridge  Co.  v.  United  States,  105  IT.  S.  470 96,  107,  382 

Bridgeport  v.  Hubbell,  5  Conn.  237 229,  257,  310 

Bridgeport  v.  Eailroad  Co.,  15  Conn.  497 392,  393 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  755 

Bridge  Proprietors  v.  Hoboken   Co.,  1  Wall.   146 

283,  332,  335,  358,  360,  361 

Brien  v.  Clay,  1  E.  D.  Smith,  649 268,  426 

Briggs '  Case,  14  Ct.  of  CI.  48 236 

Briggs'  Case,  15  Ct.  of  CI.  48 236 

Briggs  v.  Johnson  Co.,  1  Dill.  151 183 

Briggs  v.  United  States,  143  U.  S.  356 195 

Brigham  v.  Henderson,  1  Cush.  432 168 

Brights'  Case,  Taft,  217 63,     64 

Bright,  Ex  parte,  1  Utah,  155 19S 

Brighton  v.  Wilkinson,  2  Allen,  29 332 

Bright  Star,  The,  Woolw.  275 101 

Brimmer  v.  Eebman,  138  U.  S.  82 123 

Brine  v.  Insurance  Co.,  96  U.  S.  637 422 

Brinkley  v.  Louisville  etc.  Ey.  Co.,  95  Fed.  355 117 

Brinsfield   v.    Carter,   2   Ga.    143 265 

Briscoe,  Matter  of,  51   How.  Pr.  422 585 

Briscoe   v.   Anketell,  28   Miss.   361 399,   407,   408 

Briscoe  v.  Bank  of  Kentucky,  11  Pet.   257 

31,  171,  245,  246,  249,  250,  357,  526,  678,  684,  689 

Bristoe  v.  Evans,  2  Over.  341 295 

Bristol  v.  New  Chester,  3  N.  H.  524 312 

British  Prisoners,  The,  1  Wood.  &  M.  66 497 

Brittle  v.  People,   2  Neb.   198 594 

Britton  v.  Butler,  9  Blatchf.  462 195 

Broadfoot   v.   Fayetteville,   121    N.    C.   422 276,  709 

Broadf oot   v.  Fayetteville,   124   N.   C.   478 276,  709 

Broadhead   v.   Milwaukee,   19   Wis.   624 85 

Brockenborough  v.  Cabell,  1  Bart.   79 59 

Broeck  v.  The  J.  M.  Welch,  18  Blatchf.  72,  2  Fed.  381 99 

Bronson   v.   Kinzie,   1    How.   311 265,   384, 

385,    387,   395,    397,   398,    399,   400,   406,   410,    413,   422,   424,   425 

Bronson  v.   Newberry,   2   Doug.    (Mich.)    38 403,419 

Bronson  v.  Kodes,  7  Wall.  250 91 

Bronson   v.    Taylor,   33    Conn.    116 371 

Brooklyn,  In   re,   143   N.   Y.   614 325,  332 

Brooklyn  v.   Franz,   87   Hun,   54 725 

Brooklyn  C.  E.  E.  v.  Brooklyn  etc.  Co.,  32  Barb.  358 319 

Brooklyn  Park  Commrs.   v.  Armstrong,  45  N.  Y.  234 327,  329 

Brookman  v.  Hamill,  43  N.  Y.  554 510 

Brooks  v.  Clark,  119  U.  S.  513 515 

Brooks  v.  Fiske,  15  How.  223 183 

Brooks  v.  Missouri,   124  U.  S.   397 665 

Brooks  v.  State,  88  Ala.  124 252 

Brosnahan,  In  re,  4  McCrary,  6,  18  Fed.  65 179,  184,  185,  722 

Broughton  v.  Pensacola,  93  U.  S.  269 320 

Brown,  Ex  parte,  5  Cr.  C.  C.  554 197 


75 G  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Brown,   Ex  parte,   28  Fed.   654 579 

Brown,  Ex  parte,   48  Fed.  436 Ill,  445 

Brown,   Ex  parte,   38   Tex.   Cr.   295 716 

Brown,   In   re,   3   Bank   Beg.   61 161 

Brown 's  Case,  9  Opin.  Atty.   Gen.    508 70 

Brown 's    Case,   112   Mass.   411 581,   583,   585 

Brown   v.   Bridge,   106   Mass.  563 170 

Brown   v.  Brittain,  84  N.  C.  552 ' 401 

Brown   v.   Brown,   8   Cr.   123 195,  395 

Brown   v.   Campbell,   100   Cal.   641 567 

Brown  v.  Commonwealth,   73  Pa.   St.   321 666 

Brown  v.   Denver,  7  Colo.   312 650 

Brown  v.  Dillahunty,  12  Miss.  713 419 

Brown    v.    Duchesne,    19   How.    198 178,    179,183 

Biown  v.   Grant,   116   U.   S.   212 595. 

Brown   v.    Hiatt,    1    Dill.    381 193,  194 

Brown  v.  Houston,  114  U.  S.  628 101,  102,  111,  145,  444,  445,  446 

Brown  v.  Houston,  33  La.  Ann.  845 448 

Brown  v.  Keene,  8  Pet.  115 528,  529,  532 

Brown  v.  Keener,  74  N.   C.  714 440 

Brown  v.  Maryland,  12  Wheat.  437.  .  .  , 27,  31,  32,  77,  95,  96, 

99,  111,  138,  145,  444,  445,  447,  448,  449,  450,  611,  678,  680,  6:84 

Brown  v.   Nash,   1   Wyo.   85 ^/T. 65 

->sj  Brown  v.  New  Jersey,  175  U.  S.  175 588,  607,  642,  683,  709,  710 

Brown  v.  Penobscot  Bank.  S  Mass.  445 327 

Brown  v.  Smart,  145  U.  S.  454 166,  421 

Brown    v.    Smart,    69    Md.    327 169,    418 

Brown  v.  State,  82  Ga.  225 29S,  344 

Brown   v.    Strode,   5   Cr.    303 532 

Brown  v.   Swinef ord,  44  Wis.   282 635 

Brown   v.    United    States,   8    Cr.    153 195,  196 

Brown  v.  Walker,  161  U.  S.  591 29,  476,  477,  639,  640,  6  U 

Brown  v.  Welch,   26   Ind.   116 90 

Brubaker  v.  Poage,  15  B.  Mon.  123 403 

Bruce  v.  Schuyler,  4  Gilm.   321 279,   288,   292,   385,  399 

Bruffett  v.  Great  Western  B.  B.  Co.,  25  111.  312 332 

Brummagim   v.   Tillinghast,   18  Cal.   265 418,  449 

Bruss-Bitter  Co.,  In  re,  90  Fed.  652 162 

Bryan  v.  Commonwealth,  85  Va.  526 306 

Bryan  v.  Moore,  1  Minor,  377 390 

Bryant  v.  Eich,  106  Mass.  193 672 

Buchanan  v.  Litchfield,  102  U.  S.  293 30 

Buchanan  v.   Smith,  43   Miss.   90 244 

Buck  v.  Colbath,  3  Wall.  345 512 

Bucklin  v.  United  States,  159  U.  S.  681 548 

Buckner  v.  Finley,  2  Pet.  586 239,  456,  686 

Buckner  v.   Street,   1   Dill.   254 391,  526,  590 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  757 

Bnekwalter  v.  United  States,  11  Serg.  &  B.  193 512 

Budd  v.   New  York,-  143   U.   S.   547 718,  719 

Buffalo   v.   Chadeayne,   134   N.   Y.    163 298 

Buffalo  etc.    E.  E.  v.  Dudley,  14  N.  Y.  336 377 

Buffalo  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Falconer,  103  U.  S.  821 324 

Buffalo  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Ferris,  26  Tex.  588 659 

Buffalo   etc.  E.  E.   Co.   v.  Pottle,  23  Barb.   21 372 

Buffington  v.  Grosvenor,  46  Kan.  738 572 

Buford  v.   Holley,   28  Fed.   680 508 

Buford  v.   Speed,   11    Bush     (Ky.),   338 728 

Buie  v.  Parker,  63   N.   C.  131 195 

Bulkley  v.   New  York   etc.   E,  E,,   27   Conn.  479 381 

Bullock  v.  Bullock,  51   N.  J.  Eq.  446 567 

Bunch  v.  Wolverstein,  62  Miss.   56 304 

Bunn   v.    Gorgas,   41   Pa.   St.   441 413,  416,  424 

Bunn   v.   Morrison,   5  Ark.   217 264 

Burbank    v.    Eumsey,    90    111.    555 433,435 

Burch   v.   Hardwicke,   23    Gratt.   51 459 

Burch   v.   Newberry,    10   N.   Y.   390 257,  273,  683 

Burdick    v.    People,    149    111.    600 117,  121,  572 

Burf ord,   Ex   parte,   3   Cr.   448 625 

Burgess  v.  Salmon,  97  U.  S.  382 227,  229,  253,  257 

Burgess  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  92  Tex.  125 122 

Burhop    v.    Milwaukee,    21    Wis.    260 331 

Burke,  Ex  parte,  59  Gal.  6 721 

Burke  v.  Miltenberger,  9  Wall.  525 472 

Burlington    v.    Beasley,    94    U.    S.    314 719 

Burlington   etc.  Ey.   Co.  v.   Dey,   S2  Iowa,  312 338,  365 

Burlington  etc.  Ey.  Co.  v.  State,  32  N.  H.  215 33t* 

Burlock   v.   Taylor,   16   Pick.    341 168 

Burnham  v.  Webster,  1  Wood.  &  M.    175 564 

Burns,  In  re,  136  U.  S.  590 807 

Burns   v.    Crawford,    34   Mo.    330 395,  416 

Burns  v.  Multnomah  Ey.  Co.,  8  Saw.  543,  15  Fed.  177 659,  715 

Burr,   Ex   parte,   9   Wheat.   529 555 

Burrows  etc.  Lith.  Co.  v.  Sarony,  111  U.  S.  508 30,  180,  182 

Burt  v.  Merchants'  Ins.   Co.,  106  Mass.  356 658 

Burt    v.    Williams,    24   Ark.    91 408,  413,  416 

Burton,  Ex  parte,  3  Gill,  9 358 

Burton  v.  Emerson,  4  G.  Greene,  395 425 

Burwell   v.   Burgess,    32    Gratt.    47S 233,  449 

Busell  Trimmer  Co.  v.  Stevens,  137  U.  S.  433 184 

Bush  v.  Kentucky,  107  U.  S.  717 698,  730 

Bush   v.   Lester,    55    Ga.    579 159 

Bush  v.  Peru  Bridge  Co.,  3  Ind.  21 3C0 

Bush   v.   Shipman,   5   111.    186 250,  310 

Butchers'  Union  Co.  v.  Crescent  City  Co.,  Ill  U.  S.  751 343,  438 


758  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Butler 's  Case,  2  Bart.  461 41 

Butler  v.  Boston  S.  S.  Co.,  130  U.  S.  556 107,  535,  536,  540 

Butler  v.  Chariton,  13  Mo.  112 318 

Butler  v.   Gorely,   146  U.   S.   313 163 

Butler  v.  Hopper,  1  Wash.  C.  C.  499 221 

Butler   v.   Horowitz,   7  Wall.    258 91 

Butler    v.    Palmer,    1    Hill,   324 406 

Butler  v.  Pennsylvania,  10  How.  415 283,  287,  290,  611 

Butler  v.   United  States   etc.   Assn.,   97   Tenn.   686 430 

Butler  v.  Walker,  80  111.  345 340,  375,  379 

Butler  v.  Walker,  8  Chic.  L.  N.  92 591 

Butler  v.   White,  83  Fed.   581 216 

Butterfield  v.   Sawyer,  187  111.  598 265 

Butz  v.  Muscatine,   8   Wall.   574 272,  320,   385,  397 

Byers,  Ex  parte,  32  Fed.  406 192 

Byers  v.  McAuley,  149  U.  S.  618 507 

Byington    v.    Vandever,    1    Bart.    397 69,     70 

Byrd  v.  Badger,  1  McAll.   265 167 

Byrne  v.  Missouri,  8  Pet.  40 247 

Cabell  v.  Cabell,  1  Met.   (Ky.)   326 260 

Cabrera,  Ex  parte,  1  Wash.  C.  C.  232 506,  544 

Cairo  etc.  B.  E.  Co.  v.  Turner,  31  Ark.  499 607,  628 

Calder  v.  Bull,  3  Dall.   386 78,  223,  226,  227,  228,   229, 

253,  254,  256,  257,  264,  273,  391,  523,  524,  611,  612,  627,  682,  683 

Calder  v.  Kurby,  5  Gray,  597 297 

Caldwell  v.  Carrington,  9  Pet.   86 564,  565 

Caldwell   v.    State,    55    Ala.    133 255 

Caldwell  v.  Texas,  137  U.   S.   698 705,  709 

Calhoun  v.  Calhoun,  2  Rich,  N.  S.,  283 263,  264,  281 

Calhoun  v.  Kellog,   41   Ga.   240 244 

Calhoun  v.  Lanaux,  127  U.  S.  640 513 

California    Case,    Mobley,    481 45 

California  v.  Central  Pacific  R.  R.  Co.,  127  U.  S.  40.  .85,  107,  176,  651 

California  v.  Chue  Fan,  14  Saw.  578,  42  Fed.  865 737 

California  v.  Southern  Pacific  Co.,  167  U.  S.  261 542,  '543,  545,  549 

California  Pacific  R.  R.  Co.,  In  re,  3  Saw.  240 160 

Calisto,  The,  2  Ware,  30 537 

Calkins  v.  Cocke,  14  How.  227 570 

Call  v.  Chadbourne,  46  Me.  206 312 

Call  v.  Hagger,   8  Mass.  429 409 

Callaghan  v.  Myers,  128  U.  S.  647 182 

Callahan   v.  Callahan,  36  S.   C.  464 274 

Callan  v.  Wilson,  127  U.  S.  549 552,  553,  664,  665,  669 

Calloway   v.    Doe,    1    Blackf .    372 567 

Camblas  v.  Philadelphia  etc.  R.  R.,  4  Fed.  Cas.  1102 365 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  759 

Camden,  City  of,  v.  Allen,  26  N.  J.  L.  398 80 

Camden  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Briggs,  22  N.  J.  L.  647 363,  367 

Camden  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Commissioners,  18  N.  J.  L.  11.  .289,  318,  350 

Camden  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Hillegas,  18  N.  J.  L.  11 318 

Cameron  v.  Hodges,  127  U.  S.  325 529,  532 

Cameron  v.   Wurtz,  4   McCord,   278 567 

Camfield  v.  United  States,  167  U.  S.  526 597 

Cammeyer  v.  Newton,  94  U.  S.  226 185 

Camon  v.  United  States,  171  U.  S.  287 601 

Campbell's   Case,   2   Bland   Ch.   236 266 

Campbell,  Ex  parte,  74  Cal.  20 718 

Campbell  v.   Claudius,  1  Pet.  C.  C.  484 167 

Campbell   v.    Cook,    86    Tex.    630 732 

Campbell  v.  Gordon,  6   Cr.   183 153,   157,  700 

Campbell  v.  Holt,  115  U.  S.  626 405 

Campbell  v.  James,  17  Blatchf.  54 185,  658 

Campbell  v.  Missouri  Pacific  Ey.  Co.,  121  Mo.  340 346,  720 

Campbell  v.  Morris,  3  Har.  &  McH.  535 573,  574 

Campbell   v.  People,   109   111.   565 G3.j 

Campbell   v.    State,   11   Ga.   353 628,  663 

Campbell  Press  Co.  v.  Duplex  Press  Co.,  86  Fed.  320 184 

Campeau  v.  Langley,  39  Mich.  441 726 

Canadian  etc.  Co.  v.  Blake,  24  Wash.   102 422,  423 

Canal  Commrs.   v.  People,  5  Wend.  448 Ill 

Canal  Company's  Case,  83  Md.  626 270,  289 

Canal  Co.  v.  Eailroad  Co.,  4  Gill  &  J.  1 282,  288,  334,  361,  373 

Canfield  v.  Gresham,  82  Tex.  17 6S 

Canfield  v.  Hunter,  30  Tex.  712 413 

Cannon   v.    Campbell,   2   Ells.    652 40,     41 

Cannon  v.  New  Orleans,  20  Wall.  581 452,  454,  455 

Canyonville  etc.  Eoad  Co.  v.  Stephenson,  8  Or.  267 362 

Caperton   v.   Ballard,   14   Wall.   243 568 

Capital  City  Dairy  Co.  v.  Ohio,  183  U.  S.  238 718,  722,  733 

Capital  City  Light  Co.  v.  Tallahassee,  186  U.  S.  410 324 

Capital  Traction  Co.  v.  Hof,  174  U.  S.  13 205,  551,  666,  669 

Carbee  v.  Mason,  64  N.  H.  11 418 

Cardie  v.   Tracy,  11  Blatchf.  114 498 

Cardwell  v.  American  Bridge  Co.,  113  U.  S.  210 97,  100,  103,  114 

Carey  v.  Conrad,  2  Miles,  92 419 

Carey  v.   Giles,  9   Ga.   253 337,  358 

Cargill  v.  Power,   1   Mich.   371,   372 413,  422 

Carleton  v.  Eugg,  149  Mass.   550 726 

Carling  v.  Seymour  Lumber  Co.,  113  Fed.  4S3 16!! 

Carlisle  v.  Pullman  Co.,  8  Colo.  327 82 

Carlisle  v.  United  States,  16  Wall.   151 478,  480,  557 

Carll,  Ex  parte,  106  U.  S.  523 173,  218,  521 


760  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Carnes  v.  Red  River  Parish,  29  La.  Ann.  608 437 

Oarondelet  Canal  etc.  Co.  v.  Parker,  29  La.  Ann.  4  30 455 

Carpenter  v.  Dexter,  8  Wall.  525 274,  392 

Carpenter   v.   Northfield  Bank,   39   Vt.   49 90 

Carpenter  v.  Pennsylvania,  17  How.  463 223,  226,  229,  257,  391 

Carpenter  v.  Strange,  141  U.  S.  106 564,  566 

Carpenter  v.  The  Emma  Johnson,  1  Cliff.  633 535 

Carr  v.  Georgia  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  1  Kelly,  524 659 

Carr  v.  State,  104  Ala.  13 588 

Carr  v.   State,   127   Ind.   204 2S9,  303 

Carr  v.  State,  19  Tex.  App.  660 480 

Carrick  v.  Lamar,  116  U.  S.  426 460 

Carroll  v.  Campbell,  108  Mo.  550 113 

Carroll  v.   Rossiter,   10  Minn.    174 423 

Carrow  v.  Washington  Toll  Bridge,  Shell.   (N.  C.)   119 360 

Carson  v.   Carson,  40  Miss,   349 258,  287 

Carson  v.  State,  57  Md.  251 138 

Carson  River  Lumbering  Co.  v.  Patterson,  33  Cal.  334 113,  449 

Carter  v.  Cambridge  etc.  Bridge  Props.,  104  Mass.  236 315 

Carter  v.   Dow,   16   Wis.    298 726 

Carter  v.  McClaughry,  183   U.   S.  401 200,   636 

Carter  v.  Texas,  177  U.  S.  447 730 

Carthage  v.  Bank,  71  Mo.  509 85,     93 

Carthage  v.  Frederick,  122  N.  Y.  268 651 

Carton  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  R.  Co.,  59  Iowa,   151 96,  115 

Carver  v.  Peck,  131  Mass.  294 178 

Gary  v.  Curtis,  3  How.  245 187,  497,  503,  505,  506 

Cary  Library  v.  Bliss,  151  Mass.  375 288 

Case  v.  Citizens'  Bank,  2  Woods,  26 158 

Case  v.  Clark,  5  Mason,  70 532 

Case  of  State  Freight  Tax,  15  Wall.  278 

80,  95,  96,  101,  104,  107,  114.  134,  444,  447,  453 

Cassard  v.  Kroner,  4  Bank.  Reg.  569 162 

(  assidy  v.  Hunt,  75  Fed.  1017 649 

Castle  v.  Hutchinson,  25  Fed.  394 179 

Castelberg    v.    Wheeler,    68    Md.    281 163 

Castleberry  v.  State,  69  Ark.  346 730 

Cates  v.  Allen,  159  U.  S.  459 670 

Catini  v.  Tillman,  54  Fed.   969 441 

Catlin   v.   Munger,   1   Tex.   598 415,  416 

Central  etc.  Bank  v.  United  States,  137  U.  S.  355 87,  231 

Central  etc.  Telegraph  Co.  v.  Bradbury,  106  Ind.  9 186 

Central  etc.   Tel.  Co.  v.  State,   118  Ind.   194 123,  719 

Central  Bank  v.  Empire  S.  D.  Co.,  26  Barb.  23 392 

Central  Bank  v.  Little,  11  Ga.  346 246 

Central  Bank  v.  Pratt,  115  Mass.  439 217 

Central  Banking  Co.  v.  State,  54  Ga.  409 377 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  761 

Central  Bridge  v.  Lowell,  70  Mass.  472 341,  342,  657 

Central  Land  Co.  v.  Laidley,  159  U.  S.  110 269,  271,  54S 

Central  Nat.  Bank  v.  Stevens,  169  U.  S.  462 512 

Central  Pacific  B.  E.  Co.  v.  California,  162  U.  S.  121.  .82,  84,  85,  133 

Central  E.  B.  Co.  v.  Collins,  40  Ga.  624 332 

Central  B.  B.  Co.  v.  Georgia,  92  U.  S.  676 355 

Central  B.  B.  etc.  Co.  v.  Georgia,  54  Ga.  420 3  10 

Central  E.  E.  etc,  Co.  v.  Georgia  Const,  etc.  Co.,  32  S.  C.  319 574 

Central  Eailroad  Co.  v.  Ward,  37  Ga.  515 240,  242 

Central  By.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania  By.  Co.,  31  N.  J.  Eq.  492 653 

Central  Stockyards  Oo.  v.  Louisville  etc.  By.  Co.,  118  Fed.  113..      96 

Central  Trust  Co.  v.  Hennen,  90  Fed.  597 654 

Chaddock  v.  Day,  75   Mich.   527 716 

Chadwick  v.  Moore,  8  Watts  &  S.  49 415,  425 

Chaffin  v.  Taylor,  116  U.  S.  567 246,  305 

Chaffraix  v.  Board,  11  Fed.  638 303,  304,  687 

Chalmers  v.  Manning,  Mobley,  305 70 

Chamberlain  v.  Perkins,  51  N.  H.  340 102 

Chambers   v.   Church,   14  B.   I.   400 572 

Chambliss  v.  Jordan,  50   Ga.  81 270 

Champaign  Co.  Bank  v.  Smith,  7  Ohio  St.  42 277 

Champion  v.  Ames,  188  U.  S.  321 96,  101,  109 

Chancely  v.   Bailey,   37   Ga.  532 240,  284,  685 

Chandler  v.  Saddle,  3  Dill.  477 164 

Chapin   v.   Billings,   91   111.   539 401 

Chapman,  In  re,   166  U.   S.   668 63,     64 

Chapman   v.   Barney,   129   U.    S.    682 529 

Chapman   v.   Miller,   2    Spear,    769 575 

Chappedelaine  v.  Dechenaux,  4  Cr.  308 530,  531,  532 

Chappell  v.  Bradshaw,  128  U.  S.  134 541 

Chappell  v.  United  States,  160  U.  S.  510 660 

Chappell  v.  United  States,   81  Fed.   764 .209,  652 

Chappell  v.  Williamson,  49  Ala.  153 244 

Charles  Biver  Bridge  v.  Warren  Bridge,  11  Pet.  582 

264,  273,  292,  300,  333,  334,  341,  359,  391 

Charleston  v.  Oliver,  16  S.  C.  47 138 

Charleston  v.   Sogers,  2  McCord,  295 124 

Charlotte  etc.  B.  E.  Co.  v.  Gibbes,  142  U.  S.  394 731 

Chase  v.  Caryl.  57  N.  J.  L.  558 563 

Chase  v.  Flagg,  *8  Me.  182 168 

Chase  v.  Henry,  166  Mass.  579 419 

Chattanooga  v.  Dowling,  101  Tenn.   34.5 055 

Chatteaux  v.  State,  52  Ala.  388 622 

Chenning  Canal  Bank   v.  Lowery,  93  U.  S.   72 576,  707 

Cheraw  etc.  By.  Co.  v.  Commissioners,  88  N.  C.  525 354 

Cherokee  Nation  v.  Georgia,  5  Pet.  1 

32,  49,  148,  4S3,  501,  521,  528,  533,  545,  603 


762  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Cherokee  Nation  v.  Kansas  E.  E.  Co.,  135  U.  S.  656 

148,    213,    219,    483,    660,  679 

Cherokee  Nation  v.  Southern  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  39  Fed.  914 653 

Cherokee  Tobacco,  The,  11   Wall.  619 152,  484,  599,  613,  614 

Cherry  Creek  v.  Becker,  123  N.  Y.  161 324 

Chesapeake  etc.  E.  Co.  v.  Kentucky,  179  U.   S.   394 524 

Cresapeake   etc.  Ey.   v.   Miller,  114  U.  S.   188 364 

Chesapeake  etc.  Tel.  Co.  v.  Manning,  186  U.  S.  245 524,  611,  719 

Chesapeake  &  Ohio   Co.  v.  Key,  3  Cr.  C.  C.  559 652,  661 

Chesapeake  Bank  v  First  Nat.  Bank,  40  Md.  269 217 

Chestnut    v.    Shanes,    16    Ohio,    610 273,274 

Chew  Heong  v.  United  States,  112  U.  S.  540 481,  612 

Chicago  v.  Lunt,  52   111.  414 92 

Chicago   v.   Netcher,   183   111.   104 710 

Chicago   v.   Eumsey,   87   111.   348 270 

Chicago  v.   Sheldon,  9  Wall.   55 272,   324,  364 

Chicago  etc.  Ey.  Co.  v.  Becker,  32  Fed.  853 515 

Chicago  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Chicago,  166  U.  S.  235 644,  661,  672,  697 

Chicago  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Erickson,  91  111.  615 126 

Chicago  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Haggerty,  67  111.  113 368 

Chicago  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Guffey,  122  U.  S.  575 351,  354 

Chicago  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Howard,  7  Wall.  410 337 

Chicago  etc.  Ey.  v.  Iowa,  94  U.  S.  162 

113,  114,  120,  283,  332,  339,  363,  365,  367,  378,  379,  718,  719 

Chicago  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Joliet  etc.  E.  E.  105  111.  105 368 

Chicago  etc.  Ey.  v.  Jones,  149  111.  361 115,  339,  36-j,  366,  719 

Chicago  etc.  E.  E.  v.  McGlinn,  114  U.  S.  545 208 

Chicago  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Minnesota,  134  U.  S.  461 

338,   339,  366,   370,   374,  719 

Chicago  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Morehouse,  112  Wis.  1 652 

Chicago  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Nebraska,  170  U.  S.  73 367 

Chicago  etc.  E.  E.  v.  People,  56  111.  365 367 

Chicago  etc.  E.  E.  v.  People,  67  111.   11 367 

Chicago  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  People,  105   111.   657 120,  368 

Chicago  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Pontius,  157  U.  S.  211 731 

Chicago  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Eeidy,  66  111.  43 120 

Chicago  etc.  Ey.  Co.  v.  Solon,  169  U.  S.  133 121 

Chicago  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  State,  47  Neb.  549 438,  643,  717 

Chicago   etc.   Ey.   v.   Sturm,   174   U.    S.    718 564 

Chicago  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Wiggins  Ferry  Co.,  118  U.  S.  622 561 

Chicago  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Needles,  113  U.  S.  580 335 

Chicot  Co.  v.  Sherwood,  148  U.  S.  534 189,  507 

Childress    v.    Emory,    8    Wheat.    669 531,669 

Chillicothe   v.  Brown,  38  Mo.  App.  616 124 

Chilvers   v.   People,   11    Mich.   43 138 

Chinese  Exclusion  Case,  130  U.  S.  603 37,  108,  484,  494 

Chirac  v.  Chirac,  2  Wheat.  269 154,  483,  484 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  763 

Chisholm   v.   Caines,   67  Fed.   294 98 

Chisholm  v.   Coleman,  43  Ala.   204 685 

Chishc  1m  v.  Georgia,  2  Dall.  471 

35,  36,  37,  501,  503,  526,  527,  533,  542,  543,  544,  545,  686 

Choctaw  Nation  v.  United  States,  119  U.  S.  27 4S3 

Choteau  v.  Kichardson,   94  Mass.  368 419 

Chrisman  v.  Anderson,  1  Bart.  328 58 

Christensen,   Ex  parte,   83  Cal.   208 139 

Christian,  In  re,  39  Fed.  637 105 

Christian  v.  Bowman,   49  Minn.  99 429 

Christmas  v.  Russell,  5  Wall.  290 406,  568 

Christy,  Ex  parte,  3  How.  318 162 

Christy  v.  Wimpy,   2  Bart.  465 41,  60 

Chrystal  Springs  etc.  Co.  v.  Cox,  49  Fed.  561 233 

Chrystal  Springs  Water  Co.  v.  Los  Angeles,  76  Fed.  148 523 

Church   v.  Kelsey,  121  U.  S.  283 285 

Churchman   v.   Martin,   54   Ind.    380 91.    269,  395 

Chusan,   The,    2   Story,   455 106,  535 

Chy  Lung  v.  Freeman,  92  U.  S.  275 104,  116,  119,  727,  728 

Cicero  Lumber  Co.  v.  Cicero,  176  111.  9 723 

Cilley,   In   re,   58   Fed.   978 187 

Cincinnati  v.  Steinkamp,  54  Ohio  St.  284 725 

Cincinnati  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Bowling  Green,  57  Ohio  St.  345 719 

Cincinnati  etc.  R.  R.  v.  Clifford,  113  Ind.  460 342,  373 

Cincinnati  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Commonwealth,  115  U.  S.  321 731 

Cincinnati  etc.  Ry.  Co.  v.  McKeen,  64  Fed.  46 282 

Cincinnati  etc.  Co.  v.  Rosenthal,  55  111.  90 577 

Cisco  v.  Roberts,  36  N.  Y.  295 106 

Cissell  v.  McDonald,  16  Blatchf .  151 206,  506 

Citizens'  Bank  v.  Deynoodt,  25  La.  Ann.  628 433 

Citizens  of  Cincinnati,  In  re,  2  Flipp.  228 490 

Citizens'  S.  &  L.  Assn.  v.  Topeka,  20  Wall.  663 78,     80 

Citizens'  Sav.  Bank  v.  Owensboro,  173  U.  S.  654.  .348,  370,  374,  379 

Citizens'  St.  Ry.  Co.  v.  City  Ry.  Co.,  56  Fed.  746 323 

Citizens'  St.  Ry.  Co.  v.  City  Ry.  Co.,  64  Fed.  651 383 

City  v.  Churchill,  36  N.  Y.  693 84 

City  v.  Erie  Canal  Co.,  59  Pa.  St.  174 359,  361 

City  v.  Hannibal  etc.  R.  R.,  39  Mo.  476 348 

City  v.  Lamson,  9  Wall.  486 272 

City  v.  Metropolitan  Bank,  27  La.  Ann.  648 379 

City  v.  Railroad  Co.,   15  Conn.  475 320 

City  v.  Society,  24  N.  J.  L.  385 350 

City  Bank  v.  Paducah,  2  Flipp.  66 94 

City  Council  v.  Parker,  114  Ala.   118 723 

City  of  Panama,  The,  101  U.  S.  460 508,  535 

City  of  Salem,  The,  13  Saw.  612,  37  Fed.  850 212,  216 

City  of  South  Bend  v.  Martin,  142  Ind.  42 445 


764  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

City  Railway  Co.  v.  Citizens'  Railway  Co.,  1GG  U.  S.  564 

285,   334,   364,  374 

City  etc.   R.  R.  v.  New  Orleans,  157   U.  S.  224 399 

Civil  Rights  Cases,  109  U.  S.  25 693,  694,  697,  737 

Claasen,  In  re,  140  U.  S.  204 629 

Claflin  v.  Houseman,  93  U.  S.  136 510,  512 

Claflln   v.   McDermott,   12   Fed.    375 563,  565 

Clark,   In   re,   9   Wend.   221 583 

Clark  v.  Board  of  Health,  11  Chic.  L.  N.  94 124 

Clark  v.  Boston  etc.  R.  R.,  64  N.  H.  323 120.  368 

Clark  v.  Commonwealth,  29  Pa.  St.  129 665 

Clark  v.  Dick,  1  Dill.  8 227,  252,  514,  627 

Clark  v.  Gautier,  8  Fla.  362 571 

Clark  v.  Kansas  City,  176  U.  S.  118 311 

Clark  v.  Keith,  106  U.  S.  465 244 

Clark  v.  Martin,  3  Grant,  393,  49  Pa.  St.  299 416 

Clark  v.  Mitchell,  64  Mo.  564 656 

Clark  v.  Ray,  1  Har.  &  J.  318 164 

Clark  v.  Reyburn,  &  Wall.  322 422 

Clark  v.  Saybrook,  21  Conn.  313 82 

Clark   v.   Smith,    13   Pet.    203 511,  682 

Clark  v.  State,  142  N.  Y.  101 308 

Clark   v.    Ticknor,   49    Mo.    144 3SS 

Clark  v.  Titusville,  184  U.  S."  333 731 

Clarke,   Ex   parte,   100   U.   S.   408 56,  549 

Clarke,  Ex  parte,  103  Cal.  354 640 

Clarke   v.   Clarke,   178   U.   S.   195 567 

Clarke   v.   Clarke,   3   Woods,   410 444,  567 

Clarke  v.  McCreary,  40  Miss.   347 265 

Clarke  v.  Philadelphia  etc.   Co.,  4  Houst.   158 131 

Clark  Thread  Co.  v.  Williamantic  Linen  Co.,  140  U.  S.  4S9 184 

Clay  v.  Robinson,  7  W.  Va.  356 244 

Clay  v.  State,  4  Kan.  49 208 

Clay  v.  Smith,  3  Pet.  411 170 

Clay  County  v.   Society,   104  U.   S.  590 320 

Claybrook  v.  Owensboro,  16  Fed.  297 697,  698,  704,  730 

Clayton  v.  Stone,  2  Paine,  283 181 

Clayton  v.  The  Harmony,  1  Pet.   Adm.   78 193 

Clearwater  v.  Meredith,  1  Wall.  40 372 

Cleaveland   v.   Stewart,  3   Ga.   291 330 

Clepper  v.  State,  4  Tex.  244 g30 

Cleveland  v.  Board  of  Finance,  38  N.  J.  L.  259 325 

Cleveland  v.   City  Council,   102   Ga.   243 343;  344 

Cleveland  v.  Clements  Bros.  etc.  Co.,  67  Ohio  St.  197 712 

Cleveland  etc.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Backus,  154  U.  S.  445 137    133 

Cleveland  etc.  Co.  v.  Franklin  Canal  Co.,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2S90 176 

Cleveland  etc.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Illinois,  177  U.  S.  516 117,  120 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  765 

Cleveland   Gaslight   Co.  v.   Cleveland,  71  Fed.   610 338 

Cleveland  Ins.  Co.  v.  Reed,  1  Biss.  186 406 

Cline  v.  State,   36   Tex.   Cr.   320 666 

Clinton  v.  Englebrecht,  13  Wall.  447 509,  599,  600,  601 

Clinton  Bridge,  The,  10  Wall.  454 95 

Clinton  Bridge,    The,   Woolw.   164 10y 

Clinton  St.,  In  re,  2  Brewst.  599 310 

Close  v.  Glenwood  Cemetery,  107  U.  S.  476 373,  380,  381 

Clough   v.    Curtis,   134   U.    S.    638 501,601 

Coal  Co.  v.  Blatchford,  11  Wall.  174 528 

Coast  Line  etc.  Co.  v.   Savannah,  30  Fed.  650 284,  324 

Coates  v.  New  York,  7   Cow.  585 303,  318 

Cobb  v.   Kingman,   15   Mass.   137 310 

Coburn  v.  Odell,  30  N.  H.  540 641 

Cochran  v.  D  'Arcy,  5  Rich.   125 396 

Cochrane  v.  Frostburg,   81   Md.   54 726 

Cochran  v.   Van   Surlay,   20   Wend.   372 273 

Cochran   v.   State,   24   Tex.    394 622,  623 

Coe  v.  Errol,  116  U.  S.  527 110,  445 

Coffin  vs  Coffin,  4  Mass.  1 67,  68 

Coffin   v.  Portland,   27   Fed.   412 314 

Coffin  v.   Rich,   45   Me.   507 345,  401 

Coffin  v.   State,  7  Ind.  157 290 

Coffman   v.   Bank,   40   Miss.   29 396,   406,   408,  413 

Coffntan    v.   Keightly,    24   Ind.    509 198 

Cofrode  v.  Circuit  Judge,  79  Mich.  342 572 

Cohen  v.  Solomon,   66  Fed.   411 510 

Cohen   v.   Wright,   22    Cal.    319 266 

Cohn   v.   Hoffman,   45   Ark.   3S5 409,  412 

Cohens   v.   Virginia,   6   Wheat.    395 

28,  30,  31,  32,  36,  37,  171,  205,  210,  211,  '500, 

519,  520,  521,  528,  542,  543,  545,  547,  548,  600,  606,  686,  687,  688 

Coit  v.  Sutton,   102   Miih.   327 105,  134 

Cole  v.  Cunningham,  133  U.  S.  114 168,  562,  '568 

Cole  v.  La   Chambre,  31  La.   Ann.  41 269,  412 

Cole  v.   La   Grange,   113   U.   S.   9 80 

Cole  v.  Randolph,  31  La.  Ann.  535 141 

Coleman,   In    re,    15    Blatchf.    406 626,664 

Coleman    v.    Tennessee,   97   U.    S.    515 225,    473,   475,507 

Coles  v.  Celluloid  Mfg.  Co.,  39  N.  J.  326 383 

Coles  v.   Madison   County,  Breese,   156 229,   257,   273,  391 

Collar  Co.  v.  Van  Dusen,   23  Wall.  563 184 

Collector  v.  Day,  11  Wall.  124 36,  83,  677,  678,  679,  680 

Collet  7.   Collet,   2   Dal!   294 155 

Collins'  Case,  14  Ct.  of  CI.  56S,  15  Ct.  of  CI.  22 236,  490 

Collins   v.    Chicago,   4  Biss.   472 93 

Collins  v.  Collins,  79  Ky.  91 424 


HG6  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Collins  v.  New  Hampshire,  171  U.  S.  33 126 

Collins  v.  Rodolph,  3  Greene   (Iowa),  299 167,  170 

Collins  v.  Sherman,  31  Miss.  679 334,  360,  365 

Colorado  Case    (Hunt   &  Chilcott),   2  Bart.   164 59 

Colorado  Min.  Co.  v.  Turck,  150  U.  S.  141 546 

Colpetzer  v.  Trinity  Church,  24  Neb.  113 426 

Colson   v.   Lewis,   2   Wheat.   377 532 

Colt   v.   Colt,    111   U.   S.    578 564 

Colt  v.  Eves,   12  Conn.   252 607,   628,  668 

Columbia  Ins.  Co.  v.  Peoria  Br.,  6  McLean,  70 100 

Columbia  Ins.   Co.   v.   Ashley,  4  Pet.   144 479 

Columbus  v.  Rodgers,  10  Ala.  37 313 

Columbus   City   v.   Cutcomp,   61   Iowa,   672 298,  344 

Comer  v.   Folsom,  13  Minn.   219 198 

Comingore,    In   re,    96    Fed.    562 625 

Comitis  v.   Parkerson,   56   Fed.   558 154 

Commercial   Bank   v.   Chambers,   96   Minn.   9 398 

Commercial  Bank  v.  Rodney,  4  Smedes  &  M.  495 358 

Commercial  Bank  v.  Slocomb,  14  Pet.  60 533 

Commercial  Bank  v.  State,  12  Miss.  439 333,  336,  389,  398,  400 

Commerford   v.   Thompson,   2  Flipp.   616,   1   Fed.   421 176,  626 

Commrrrissioners  of  Patents  v.  Whitely,  4  Wall.  534 460 

Commissioners  v.  Board,  39   Ohio  St.  634 103 

Commissioners  v.  Holyoke  W.  P.  Co.,  104  Mass.  448 310,  374 

Commissioners   v.   Hudson,   20   Kan.    75 291 

Commissioners  v.  Lucas,  93  U.  S.   114 292,  313,  315,  320,  652 

Commissioners  v.   Lellew,   99  U.   S.  628 272 

Commissioners  v.   The   Cuba,  28  Ala.   185 124 

Commissioners   v.   Thayer,   94  U.   S.    642 272 

Commissioners'   Court  v.  Rather,  48  Ala.  433 397 

Commissioners   of  Laramie   County  v.   Albany   County,   92  U.   S. 

308 310 

Common  Council  of  Detroit  v.  Board  of  Assessors,  91  Mich.  78..  277 

Commonwealth   v.   Abrahams,   156   Mass.   57 731 

Commonwealth  v.   Alger,   7   Cush.   53 118,   439,  649 

Commonwealth  v.  Anrer,  149  Pa.  St.  35 636 

Commonwealth  v.  Arnold,   83   Ky.   1 633 

Commonwealth  v.  Aves,  18  Pick.  215 591 

Commonwealth  v.  Bacon,   13  Bush,   212 361,  373,  649 

Commonwealth  v.  Bacon,   6  Serg.   &  L.   322 290,  291 

Commonwealth   v.   Bailey,   13   Allen,   541 295 

Commonwealth   v.   Barker,   5   Binn.   423 197 

Commonwealth  v.  Bean,   Thach.   C.   C.   85 261 

Commonwealth   v.   Bird,   12   Mass.   443 290 

Commonwealth   v.   Bonsall,   3   Wheat.   559 374 

Commonwealth    v.    Booker,    82   Va.   964 305 

Commonwealth  v.  Bosworth,   113  Mass.   200 637 


Table  of  Cases  Cited. 


767 


Commonwea 
Commonwea 
Commonwea 
Commonwea 

836 
Commonwea 
Commonwea 
Commonwea 
Commonwea 
Commonwea 
Commonwea 
Commonwea 
Commonwea 
Commonwea 
Commonwea 
Commonwea 
Commonwea 
Commonwea 
Commonwea 
Commonwea 
Commonwea 
Commonwea 
Commonwea 
Commonwea 
Commonwea 
Commonwea 
Commonwea 
Commonwea 
Commonwea 
Commonwea 
Commonwea 
Commonwea 
Commonwea 
Commonwea 
Commonwea 
Commonwea 
Commonwea 
Commonwea 
Commonwea 
Commonwea 
Commonwea 
Commonwea 
Commonwea 
Commonwea 
Commonwea 
Commonwea 
Commonwea 


th  v.  Casey,  12  Allen,  222 

th  v.  Clary,  8  Mass.  72 208,  209,  210, 

th  v.  Cook,  6  Serg.  &  R.  577 

th  v.  Covington   etc.  Bridge   Co.,  14  Ky.  Law  Eep. 


th  v.   Cullen,   13  Pa.   St.   133 

th  v.   Daniels,  6  Pa.   L.  J.   428 

th  v.  Deacon,  10  Serg.  &  E.  135. . . 584,  586, 

th  v.  Delaware  etc.  By.  Co.,  1  Pearson,  356 

th  v.  Delaware  etc.  Canal  Co.,  150  Pa.  St.  245 

th   v.   Dorsey,   103   Mass.   412 

th  v.  Eastern  E.  E.  Co.,  103  Mass.  254 

th  v.  East  Tennessee,  97  Ky.   244 

th  v.  Edison  Co.,  145  Pa.  St.  140 

th  v.  Edison  Co.,  157  Pa.  St.  529 

th  v.  Electric  Light   Co.,  145  Pa.  St.   140 

th  v.   Erie  By.   Co.,  1  Pearson,   345 

th  v.  Farmers'  Bank,  38  Mass.  542 

th  v.  Fayette  County  B.  E.,  55  Pa.  St.  542.  .340,  353, 

th  v.  Feely,  1  Va.  Cas.  321 

th  v.  Fitzpatrick,  121  Pa.  St.  109 632, 

th   v.    Folsom,    13    Minn.    219 

th  v.  Fowler,   98  Ky.   648 

th   v.  Fuller,   8  Met.   313 

th  v.  Gamble,  11  Serg.  &  E.  94 

th  v.   Gardner,   11   Gray,   438 

th   v.   Getchell,   16   Pick.   452 

th   v.   Green,   17   Mass.  514 563,   585, 

th    v.    Graves,    155    Mass.    163 

th   v.   Griffin,   3   B.   Mon.    208 

th   v.   Griffith,   19   Mass.   11 

th  v.   Hall,  9   Gray,  267 

th  v.  Has,  122  Mass.  42 

th   v.   Homer,   153   Mass.   343 

th    v.    Huntley,    156    Mass.    248 

th  v.  Irish,  3  Serg.  &  E.  176 

th   v.   Ives,   18   Pick.   193 

th   v.   Jarvis,   1   Mon.   5 

th  v.  Johnson,  78  Ky.  509 

th  v.  Jones,  10  Bush,  732 

th  v.  Jones,  82  Va.  789 304, 

th  v.  Kimball,  24  Pick.  359 139,  161,  395,  682, 

th  v.  Kosloff,  5  Serg.  &  E.  345 

th  v.  Lewis,  6  Binn.  266 

th   v.   Manchester,   152   Mass.   243 130, 

th  v.   Mann,  5  Watts  &  S.   415 290, 

th  v.  Merrill,  Thaeh.  C.  C.  1 


441 
211 
633 

359 
370 
581 
587 
233 
278 
261 
381 
515 
845 
180 
180 
233 
333 
379 
511 
633 
329 
718 
174 
197 
256 
254 
'587 
255 
576 
624 
583 
620 
260 
126 
202 
154 
370 
730 
251 
306 
683 
544 
216 
723 
516 
633 


768  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Commonwealth  v.  Milton,  12  R.  Mori.  212 572,  525,  576 

Commonwealth  v.  Morrison,  1  A.  K.  Marsh.  75 84,  212 

Commonwealth  v.  Mott,  21    Pick.  492 254 

Commonwealth  v.  Mulhall,  162  Mass.  496 723 

Commonwealth   v.   Murphy,   166   Mass.   172 623 

Commonwealth  v.  Murphy,  174  Mass.  374 255 

Commonwealth  v.  Murray,  4  Binn.   487 197 

Commonwealth  v.  Myer,   92   Va.   809 141 

Commonwealth  v.  New  Bedford  Br.,  68  Mass.  339 360 

Commonwealth  v.  New  York  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  150  Pa.  St.  234 278 

Commonwealth   v.   Ober,   12   Cush.   493 140 

Commonwealth  v.  O  'Hara,  1  Bank.  Reg.  19 162 

Commonwealth   v.   Owens,    114   Mass.    252 140 

Commonwealth  v.   Paul,   170  Pa.   St.   284 146 

Commonwealth  v.  Pennsylvania  Ry.   Co.,  1  Pearson,  379 233 

Commonwealth  v.  Peters,  53  Mass.  387 634 

Commonwealth  v.  Petty,  96  Ky.  454 86,  179 

Commonwealth  v.  Philadelphia  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  1  Pearson,  379 102 

Commonwealth  v.  Philadelphia  etc.  R.  R.,  62  Pa.  St.  292 112 

Commonwealth  v.  Philadelphia  Co.,  157  Pa.   St.  527 180 

Commonwealth   v.   Phillipps,   11   Pick.    28 260 

Commonwealth   v.  Plaisted,   148   Mass.   381 309,  620 

Commonwealth  v.   Roby,   12   Pick.   496. 635 

Commonwealth   v.   Schaffer,   4   Dall.   App.   86 511 

Commonwealth    v.    Smith,    6   Bush,    303 142 

Commonwealth  v.  Smith,  92  Ky.  38 133,  135,  136,  139,  144 

Commonwealth    v.    Sullivan,    150    Mass.    315 254 

Commonwealth  v.  Telephone   Co.,  145  Pa.  St.  127 180 

Commonwealth   v.   Towles,   5   Leigh,    746 153,  155 

Commonwealth  v.  Tracy,  46  Mass.  536 584,  586 

Commonwealth  v.  Vaughn,  101  Ky.  603 635 

Commonwealth  v.  Weatherhead,  110  Mass.  175 130 

Commonwealth  v.  Weller,    82    Va.    721 305 

Commonwealth    v.   Westinghouse    Air    Brake    Co.,   151    Pa.   St. 

276 ISO 

Commonwealth  v.  Westinghouse  Electric  Co.,  151  Pa.  St.  265....  180 

Commonwealth  v.  Wilson,  Phila.   80 586 

Commonwealth    v.    Wood,    2    Cush.    149 630 

Commonwealth  v.  Wright,  158  Mass.  149 581,  58  S 

Commonwealth  v.  Wynian,  12  Cush.  239 256 

Commonwealth   v.   Young,   Bright.   302 208,  209 

Commonwealth,   ex  rel  v.   Slipo,   25  Pa.   St.   29 487 

Compagnie   Francaise  v.  Louisiana  State  Board,  51  La.  Ann.  645.  125 
Compagnie  Francaise   v.   Louisiana   State  Board,   186   U.   S.   391, 

125,   650,  716 

Compo  v.  Jackson  Iron  Co.,  50  Mich.  583 149 

Conant   v.   Vanschaiek,   24   Barb.   87 345 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  769 

Concord  v.  Portsmouth  Savings  Bank,  92  U.  S.  630 26;) 

Confederate    Note   Case,   19   Wall.   5-18 386,   388 

Confiscation   Cases,   20   Wall.   109 470 

Confiscation  Cases,  1  Woods,  226 243 

Congress,  The,  1  Biss.  44 534 

Coniff  v.  San  Francisco,  67  Cal.  47 655 

Conkey  v.  Hart,  14  N.  Y.  22 399,  400,  403 

Connecticut  Mutual  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Cushman,  108  U.  S.  65.. 386,  394 

Connecting  By.  v.  Union  By.,  108  U.  S.  272 365 

Conner  v.  Elliott,  18  How.  593 138,  572,  573,  575,  704 

Connolly  v.  Taylor,  2  Pet.  556 528 

Connolly  v.  Union  etc.  Co.,  184  U.  S.  558 443,  733 

Connor  v.  New  York,  2   Sand.   Ch.   355 290 

Connor  v.   Scott,  4  Dill.   247 519 

Conover   v.   Boach,   4   Fish,   16 184 

Conrad  v.  Waples,   96  U.   S.   284 195 

Consolidated  Assn.  of  Planters  v.  Lord,  35  La.  Ann.  425 291 

Consolidated    Chan.   Co.   v.     Central    Pacific    B.   B.   Co.,   51   Cal. 

269 653 

Consolidated  Coal  Co.  v.  Illinois,  183  U.  S.  203 732 

Consolidated   Fruit  Jar  Co.   v.  Wright,   94  U.   S.  96 185 

Continental  Ins.  Co.  v.  Bhoads,  119  U.  S.  239 505,  530 

Converse,  In  re,   137  U.   S.   632 69S 

Converse  v.  Bradley,  1  Cush.  434 168 

Converse  v.  Burrows,  2  Minn.  229 430 

Converse  v.  United  States,  21  How.  463 70 

Conway  v.   Seamons,   55   Vt.   11 160 

Conway  v.  Taylor,  1  Black,  603 113,  118,  360 

Cook,  In  re,  48  Fed.  843 579,  582 

Cook  v.  Hart,  146  U.  S.  193 513,  582 

Cook  v.  Lillo,  103  U.  S.  793 532 

Cook  v.  Moffatt,  5  How.  316 161,  166,  169,  418 

Cook  v.  Oliver,   1  Woods,  437 244 

Ccok  v.  Pennsylvania,  97  U.  S.  573 Ill,  145,  447,  448 

Cook  v.  Port  Fulton,  106  Ind.  173 131 

Cook    v.    Eogers,    31    Mich.    391 164 

Cook  v.  Smith,  30  N.  J.  L.  387 277 

Cook  v.   State,  23  N.  J.  L.   474 350 

Cook  v.  United  States,  138  U.  S.  182 260,  553 

Cooley  v.  Board  of  Wardens,  12  How.  314 

30,   31,  96,   101,  104,  106,  235,  449,  454 

Cooper,  In  re,  143  U.  S.  500 461.  470,  481,  521,  522,  612 

Cooper  v.  Newell,  155  U.   S.  533,  15  S.  Ct.   355 529 

Cooper  v.   Newell,   173   U.   S.    566 562 

Cooper   v.    Eeynolds,    10   Wall.    316 518 

Cooper  v.   Schultz,   32   How.  Pr.   107 72?,,    725 

Cooper   v.   Telfair,   4   Dall.   18 33,   610 

Notes  on  Constitution — 49 


770  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Cooper  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Ferguson,  113  U.  S.  735 108,  144 

Coosa  River  Steamboat  Co.  v.  Barclay,  30  Ala.  120 403,  428 

Coosaw  Min.  Co.  v.  South  Carolina,  144  U.  S.  562 333,  340 

Copell  v.   Hall,   7  Wall.  554 193 

Corbin  v.  Butler,  Taf t,  582 50 

Corbin  v.  Marsh,  2  Duvall,  193 659 

Corbin   v.  Washington   County   Commissioners,   3   Fed.   356 279 

Corbitt  v.  Bank,   2  Harr.    (Del.)    252 250 

Corfield  v.  Coryell,  4  Wash.  C.  C.  388 100,  112,  130,  436,  572,  576 

Coriell   v.   Ham,  4  G.   Greene,   455 414,   437 

Corliss,  In  re,  11  R.  I.   63S 464 

Cornelius  v.   Glenn,  7  Jones,  512 295 

Cornell  v.  Hichens,  11   Wis.   353 429,   435 

Cornell  v.  Walsh,  107  Ind.  372 309 

Corner  v.  Miller,  1  Bank.  Reg.  99 162,   399 

Corning   v.   Greene,   23    Barb.    33 289 

Corsair,  The,  145  U.  S.  343 540 

Corson  v.  Maryland,  120  U.  S.  505 142 

Cory  v.   Carter,  48   Ind.   345 572,   730,   731 

Costor  v.  Brush,  23  Wend.  631 361 

Cotting  v.  Kansas  City  Stockyards  Co.,  183  U.  S.  84 439 

Cotting  v.   Kansas  City  Stockyards  Co.,  79  Fed.  682 339 

Coughran  v.  Bigelow,  164  U.  S.  308 670 

Coulter  v.   Stafford,  56  Fed.  566 279,  431 

Council  Bluffs  v.  Kansas  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  45  Iowa,  338 105,  106 

Counselman  v.  Hitchcock,  142  IT.  S.  562 639,  640,  665 

County  of    Mobile  v.  Kimball,   102   U.   S.   698 80,   101,   103 

County  Commissioners  v.  King,  13  Fla.  476 390 

Coupland,  Hx  parte,  26  Tex.  386 197,  217,  573 

Coutzen  v.  United   States,   179   U.   S.   195 570 

Covell   v.   Heyman,   111   U.    S.    182 512 

Covington  v.  Covington  etc.  Bridge  Co.,  10  Bush,  69 296 

Covington   v.   Kentucky,   173   U.    S.    239 379 

Covington   v.   Menzies,    24    S.   W.    242 316 

Covington  etc.  Bridge  Co.  v.  Kentucky,  154  U.  S.  212,  14  S.  Ct. 

1087 101,  112,   115,   137 

Covington   etc.   Co.   v.   Sandford,   164  U.   S.   578 

325,  333,  338,  340,  351,  354,  359,  363,  628,   72S,  731 

Cowan   v.   Prowse,  93  Ky.   172 480 

Cowden  v.  Pacific  Coast  S.  S.  Co.,  94  Cal.  470 112 

Cowell  v.  Springs  Co.,  100  U.  S.  60 577 

Cowles  v.  Mercer  County,  7  Wall.   122 507 

Cox   v.   Berry,   13    Ga.    306 400,   408,    400 

Cox  v.  State,  3  Blackf .  193 282 

Coxe  v.   Martin,  44  Pa.   St.   322 408,   415,   416 

Coxe  v.  McClenachan,  3  Dall.  478 66,  67 

Coy,  In   re,   127  U.   S.   752 56,   57 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  771 

Coyle   v.   Mclntyre,   7   Houst.    44 290 

Cozzens  v.  Frink,  13  Am.  Law  Eeg.  700 224 

Craft  v.  Lofinck,   34  Kan.   365 315 

Craig   v.   Brown,   1   Pet.    C.   C.    354 56b 

Craig  v.  Fowler,  59  Iowa,  200 429 

Craig  v.  Leitensdorfer,   123  U.   S.   211 459,   493,   501 

Craig  v.  Missouri,  4  Pet.  435 29,  89,  245,  246,  247,  461,  501,  521 

Craighead   v.    Bank,    1    Meigs,    199 24b 

Crain  v.  United  States,  162   U.   S.   645 648 

Crandall  v.  Nevada,  6  Wall.  39.  .  .104,  103,  116,  134,  196,  446,  447,  575 

Crane,   Ex   parte,   5   Pet.    200 549 

Crane   v.    Hardy,    1    Mich.    62 425 

Cranson    v.    Smith,    37    Mich.    309 179,    183 

Crapo  v.  Kelly,  16   Wall.   624 190 

Crawford  v.  Branch  Bank,  7  How.  279 399,  405,  432 

Crawford    v.   Neal,    144   TJ.    S.    593 530 

Crawford   v.   The   Caroline  Keed,  42   Cal.   469 510 

Crawfordsville   etc.    Co.   v.    Smith,    89   Ind.    295 362 

Crease  v.  Babcock,  23  Pick.  340 332,  371,  375,  382 

Cregg,   Ex   parte,    2    Curt.    100 153 

Creighton  v.   San  Francisco,  42   Cal.   446 315 

Crenshaw  v.   State  River  Co.,  6   Rand.   245 292 

Crescent  City  Co.  v.  New  Orleans,  33  La.  Ann.  934 29S 

Crescent  City  Gas  Light  Co.  v.  New  Orleans  Gas  Light  Co.,  27 

La.    Ann.    138 313,    319 

Crittenden   v.   White,   23   Minn.    24 170 

Crocker  v.  State,  47  Ga.  568 637 

Cronin   v.   Patrick   County,   89   Fed.    79 225 

Cronise  v.   Cronise,  54  Pa.   St.   262 266 

Crook  etc.  v.  Old  Point  Comfort  Hotel  Co.,  54  Fed.  604 208 

Cropper   v.   Coburn,   2   Curt.   465 523 

Crosby  v.  Hanover,  36  N.  H.   404 341,   342 

Cross  v.  Harrison,   16  How.   191 472,  473,   4S3,   570,   594,   598 

Cross  v.  North  Carolina,  132  U.  S.  138 511,  635 

Cross  v.  United  States,  145  U.  S.  574 548 

Crossley   v.   California,   168  U.   S.   641 511,    638 

Croudon   v.   Leonard,   4   Cr.   437 538 

Crow  v.   Coons,   27  Mo.  512 4lJ 

Crow  Dog,  Ex  parte,  109  U.  S.  560,  3  S.  Ct.  398 147,  150 

Crowe  v.  Aiken,  2  Biss.  214 181 

Crowley  v.   Christensen,  137  U.  S.   89 439,  441,   716 

Crown  Cork  etc.  Co.  v.  State,  87  Md.  699 86,  180 

Croy  v.  Obion  County,  104  Tenn.   525 142 

Crutcher  v.  Kentucky,  141  U.  S.  59 107,  114,  126,  139,  144,  57S 

Cryer  v.  Andrews,  11  Tex.  105 570 

Cuban  Steamship  Co.  v.  Fitzpatrick,  06  Fed.  67 106 

Cubreth,  Ex  parte,  49  Cal.  435 5S4,  586 


772  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Cudahy  Packing  Co.  v.  Sioux  Nat.  Bank,  69  Fed.  782 673 

Cuddy,  Petitioner,  131  U.   S.   284 505,  50G 

Cully  v.  Baltimore  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  1  Hughes,  536 699,  701 

Culverhouse   v.   Beach,  1  Johns.   Cas.   399 157 

Cumberland  etc.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Barren  County  Court,  73  Ky.  604....   320 

Cumming  v.  Board  of  Education,  175  U.  S.  545 704,  731 

Cummings  v.  Missouri,  4  Wall.  323 

226,  227,  228,  229,  251,  253,  254,  593,  612,  615 

Cumminga  v.  National  Bank,  101   U.  S.   156 93 

Cummings   v.   Spaunhorst,   5   Mo.   App.    21 343 

Cummings  v.  Wingo,  31  S.  C.  435 572,  573 

Cupp    v.    Welch,   50    Ark.    294 392 

Curran   v.   Arkansas,   15   How.    318 

245,  303,  337,  357,  383,  384,  393,  397,  39S,  6S9 

Curry  v.  Landers,  35  Ala.  280 268,  286,  427 

Curtis  v.  Butler  Co.,  24  How.   44S 340 

Cuitis  v.  Gibbs,  2  N.  J.  L.  405 32,   568 

Curtis   v.   Morehouse,   12   La.   Ann.   649 360 

Curtis  v.  Whitney,  13  Wall.  70 273,  2S0,  391,  431 

Curtner  v.  United   States,   149   U.   S.   673 525 

Cushman  v.  Hale,  68  Vt.  452 291 

Cusic  v.  Douglas,  3  Kan.  23 411,  412 

Cutler's  Case,  Taft,  248 49 

Cutler  v.  Board  of   Supervisors,  56  Miss.   122 275 

Cutter  v.  Folsom,   17   N.   H.   139 161 

Cutting  v.   Florida   etc.   Co.,   40   Fed.   644 110 

Cutts  v.  Hardee,  38   Ga.  350 399,  433,  435,  437 

Dabney  v.  Bank,  3  S.  C.  158 357 

Daggs   v.  Insurance   Co.,   130   Mo.   391 577 

Daily  v.  Burke,  2S  Ala.  328 268,  286,  427 

Dainese's  Case,  15   Ct.   of  CI.   64 489 

Dale  v.  State,  3  Stew.  387 291 

Dallas  v.  Fosdick,  40  How.  Pr.   249 741 

Damman   v.    Commissioners,   4   Wis.   414 294 

Damon,  In  re,  70  Me.   154 164 

Dana,   Ex  parte,   7  Ben.   1 552 

Dana,  In  re,  68  Fed.  901 188 

Danforth  v.  Groton  Water  Co.,  178  Mass.  472 275 

Danforth    v.    Robinson,    80   Me.    472 2S4 

Daniel  v.   Richmond,  78  Ky.   542 576 

Daniel  Ball,  The,  10  Wall.  557 95,  96,  97,  100,  110,  111 

Daniels  v.  Hilgard,  77  111.  640 440,  443 

Daniels   v.    McCabe,   3    Cliff.    117 140 

Daniels  v.  Railroad  Co.,  3  Wall.  254 547 

Daniels   v.   Tearney,    102   IT.    S.    48 240 

Danks   v.   Quackenbush,   1   N.   Y.    129 410,   424 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  773 

Danolds  v.  State,  89  N.  Y.  36 269 

Danville  v.  Pace,  25  Gratt.  1 257,  273,  274,  394,  430,  659 

D  'Arcy   v.   Ketchum,   11   How.   175 562 

Darby  v.   Mayer,  10  Wheat.  469 567 

Darling  v.  Berry,  13  Fed.   659 159 

Darlington  v.  New  York,  31  N.  Y.  165 313 

Darlington  v.  United  States,  82  Pa.  St.  382 358 

Darnley  v.  State  Bank,  15  Ark.  16 403 

Darrington  v.  Bank  of  Alabama,  13  How.  16 245 

Dart  v.  Houston,  22  Ga.  506 383 

Dartmouth    College    Case.     See    Trustees   Dartmouth    College   v. 
Woodward. 

Dash  v.  Van  Kleeck,  7  Johns.  447 265,  273,  285,  683 

Dashing   v.   State,    78    Ind.    358 174 

Daughdrill  v.  Life  Ins.  Co.,  31  Ala.   91 289,  352 

Davenport  v.   Cloverport,   72  Fed.   689 730 

Davenport  Bank  v.  Board  of  Equalization,  123  U.  S.  85 9i 

Davenport   County  v.   Davenport,   13   Iowa,   229 31S 

Davidson   v.   Champlin,   7   Conn.   248 188,   512 

Davidson  v.  New  Orleans,  96  U.  S.  101 627,  641,  642,  644,  645,  714 

Davidson  v.   Smither,   1  Biss.   349 169 

Davidson   v.   State,   4   Tex.   App.   545 120,    367 

Davis,  In  re,   1   Saw.  262 162 

Davis  v.  Ballard,   1  J.  J.   Marsh.   563 273,   400,  430 

Davis   v.   Beason,   133   U.    S.    342 259,    629 

Davis   v.   Bohle,    92   Fed.    326 164 

Davis  v.  Bronson,  6  Towa,  410 395 

Davis  v.  Burke,  179  IT.   S.   403 33,   710 

Davis  v.  Burton,  52  Pa.   St.   9 91 

Davis  v.  Central  E.  E.  Co.,  17  Ga.  323 118,  346 

Davis  v.   Champlain,   7   Conn.   244 497 

Davis  v.  Gray,  16  Wall.  203 244,  245,  292,  293,  304 

Davis   v.   Log   Driving   Co.,   82   Me.    350 341 

Davis  v.  Massachusetts,  167  U.  S.  47 698 

Davis   v.   Minor,   1    How.    (Miss.)    193 273 

Davis  v.  Packard,  7  Pet.  281 498,  515 

Davis   v.    People,    22    Colo.    1 638 

Davis  v.  Pierse,  7  Minn.  13 397,  574,   575 

Davis  v,  Police  Jury,  1  La.  Ann.  296 361 

Davis   v.   Eeipe,    114   Ind.    588 413,    423 

Davis  v.   Eichardson,   45   Miss.   503 81,   83 

Davis   v.   State,   68   Ala.   58 718 

Davis  v.  State  Bank,  7  Ind.   316 434 

Davis  v.  Texas,  139  U.  S.  653 663 

Davis  Coal  Co.  v.  Polland,  158  Ind.  607 720 

Davis-Henderson  Lumber  Co.  v.  Gottschalk,  81  Cal.   641 426 

Davison  v.  Gilbert,  Eep.  3000,  5th  Cong.,  2d  Sess 45 


774  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Davison  v.   Sealskins,  2  Paine,  333 190 

Dawson,   Ex   parte,    83   Fed.    308 5«S 

Dawson  v.   Godfrey,  4  Cr.   321 570 

Dawson  v.  Lee,  83  Ky.  49 730 

Dawson  v.  Shaver,  1  Blackf.  204 60S 

Dawson  v.  State,  6  Tex.  347 , 262 

Day  v.  Bardwell,  3  Bank.  Reg.  455 15y 

Day   v.    Bardwell,    97    Mass.    250 162 

Day  v.  Buffington,  3  Cliff.   388 83 

Day  v.  Micou,  18   Wall.   160 559 

Dayton  Coal  Co.  v.  Barton,  183  U.  S.  24 143,  684,  708 

Dean,    Petitioner,    83    Me.    498 153 

De  Bara,  Ex  parte,  179  U.  S.  322 176 

Debs,  In  re,  158  U.  S.  581 37,  105,  176,  212,  215,  560,  609 

Decatur   v.   Paulding,    14   Pet.    515 460,    504 

Decker  v.  Baltimore  etc.  E.  R.  Co.,  30  Fed.  726 97,  98 

Decker  v.  Hughes,  63  111.  33 324 

Deckert,  In  re,  10   Bank.  Reg.   1 159 

De  Cordova  v.  Galveston,  4  Tex.  470 401,  406 

Deems  v.  Mayor,  80  Md.  164 698,  722 

Deering  v.  Boyle,   8   Kan.   532 412 

De   Graff  v.   St.  Paul   etc.   R.   R.   Co.,   23  Minn.   144 <369 

De  Giacomo,  In  re,  12  Blatchf.  401 226,   228,   254 

Deichman,  Appeal  of,  2  Whart.  295 420,  421 

De  La  Croix  v.  Chamberlain,  12  Wheat.   600 462,  502 

Delafield   v.    State,    26    Wend.    192 246,    510 

Delahay    v.    McConnell,    5    111.    156 437 

De   La  Land   v.    Treasurer,   17   How.    2 527 

Delaware  etc.  Co.  v.  Delaware,  50  Fed.  677 122 

Delaware  etc.  Co.  v.  Raritan  Co.,  16  N.  J.  Eq.  336 365 

Delaware  R.  R.   Co.   v.   Thorp,   5  Harr.   454 375 

Delaware  Railroad  Tax    Case,  18  Wall.  232 

83,  114,  133,  279,  283,  299,  332,  341,  355 

De  Lima  v.  Bidwell,  182  U.  S.  197 482 

Delmas  v.  Insurance  Co.,  14  Wall.   667 269,   385,   388 

Delovio  v.  Boit,  2  Gall.  398 534,   537 

Demarest   v.   Mayor,   74   N.   Y.   166 290 

De    Moss   v.    Newton,    31    Ind.    220 264 

Den   v.   Foy,   1  Murph.    (N.   C.)     58 296 

Den   v.  Hoboken   Land   Co.,   18   How.   280 

30,    624,    625,    627,    62S,    642,    643,    644 

Denoale  v.   Archer,   8   Pet.   530 207 

Denio   v.   Van  Riper,  16  N.  J.   L.   14 273 

Dennis  v.   Railroad   Co.,   34  La.   Ann.   956 341 

Denny  v.  Bennett,  128  U.  S.  497,  9  S.  Ct.  137 

167,   160,   3S0,  418,  420,  490,    567 

Denny  v.  Pironi,  141  U.  S.  123.  11    S.   Ct.   966 529 

Dent  v.  West  Virginia,  129  U.  S.  124 251,  650,  714,  718 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  775 

Dentzel    v.    Waldie,    30    CaL    138 274,  392 

Denver  etc.  By.   Co.  v.   Davidson,  2   Colo.   App.  443 721 

Deny,  Ex  parte,  10  Dev.  214 223 

Depew  v.  Trustees,  5  Ind.  8 594 

Depuy   v.   Stewart,   3   Wend.   130 282 

Derby  etc.   Co.   v.  Parks,   10   Conn.   52 283,  332,  334,  361 

Desnoyer    v.    Jordan,    27    Minn.    2iJ  5 267 

De  TreviUe  v.  Smalls,  98  U.  S.  517 232 

Detroit    v.   Blackeby,    21    Mich.    84 31U 

Detroit  v.  Detroit  City  Ey.  Co.,  56   Fed.   8S3 383 

Detroit  v.  Osborne,  135  U.  S.  49S 573 

Detroit  etc.  Co.  v.  Osborn,  189  U.  S.  3S3 718 

De  Vignier  v.  New  Orleans,  16  Fed.  11 277 

Dewal  v.  McLaskey,  1  Ala.  708 129 

Dewey  v.  Central  Car  etc.  Co.,  42   Mich.  402 356 

Dewey  v.  Des  Moines,  173  U.  S.  204 684 

Dewey  v.  United  States,  178  U.  S.  521 679 

Dewing  v.  Perdicaries,   96   U.   S.   195 242 

Dewing  v.   Sears,  11  Wall.   380 91 

Diamond  Match  Co.  v.  Ontonagon,  1SS  U.  S.  82 116 

Dickason  v.  Marion  County  Court,  128  Mo.  427 316 

Dickerman  v.  Northern  Trust  Co.,  173  U.  S.  192 532 

Dickey  v.  Turnpike  Co.,  7  Dana,  113 175,  176,  177 

Dickinson  v.   Dickinson,   3  Murph.    (N.   C.)     330 228,  258 

Dickinson  v.  Marion  County  Court,  128  Mo.  427 314 

Dikeman  v.  Dikenian,  11  Paige,  484 280,  424 

Dillard,  In  re,  9  Bank.  Reg.  8 159,  161 

Dillard  v.  Webb.  55  Gal.  468 726 

Dillingham    v.    Hawk,    60    Fed.    497 672 

Dingman  v.  People,  51  111.  277 441,  442 

Dinkey   v.    Commonwealth,   17    Pa.    St.    126 636 

Dinsmore  v.  Police  Board,  12  Abb.  N.  C.  436 121 

District  Attorney,  Case  of,  16  Am.  Law  Reg.  786 ' 487,  492 

District    Court    v.    Bailey,    171   U.    S.    176 2U6 

Divina  Pastora,  The,   4   Wheat.   63 462,   494,  502 

Division,   In  re,   15   Kan.   194 312 

Dixon's   Case,    Taft,    13 52 

Dixon    v.    United    States,    1    Brock.    177 36 

Dize   v.   Lloyd,   36  Fed.   651 130 

Dobbins  v.  Commissioners'  of  Erie  Co.,   16  Pet.  445 

37,    80,    84,    609,    678,  68U 

Dobbs,   In   re,   21   How.   Pr.   68 198 

Dodge  v.  Tullcys,   144  U.   S.   455 531 

Dodge   v.   Woolsey,   IS   How.   347 

32,  269,   270,  299,   332,   352,  548,  609,  686 

Dodge  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Ohio  etc.  Pulley  Works,  101  Fed.  584 184 

Doe    v.    Braden,    16    How.    657 4,81,  612 

Dole   v.  Irish,   2   Barb.   639 14S,  150 


776  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Doll,  Ex  parte,  7  Phila.   595 .' 507 

Doll  v.  Evans,  15  Int.  Rev.  Eec.   143,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3969 500 

Dominic  v.  Sayre,  3  Sand.  555 317 

Dominick   v.    State,    134   Ala.    90 635 

Domire   v.    Cogly,   8    Blackf.    177 413,    415 

Donegan   v.   Wood,   49   Ala.   249,   278 242 

Donnell  v.  Lewis  County  Bank,  80  Mo.  172 168 

Donnelly  v.  Corbett,  7  N.  Y.  5U0 168,  169,  418,  419 

Donnelly    v.    Decker,    58    Wis.    4(31 725 

Donnelly  v.  Ivers,  20  Blatchf .  383,  18  Fed.  593 181 

Donohue  v.  County  of  Will,  100  111.  106 29U 

Donovan  v.  Pitcher,  53   Ala.  415 571 

Dooley  v.   Smith,   13   Wall.   604 90,   91 

Dooley   v.   United   States,   182   U.   S.    222 444,   446,   473 

Doremug   v.    Walker,   8    Ala.    200 162 

Dorman   v.   State,   34   Ala.   216 28 

Dorrington  v.   Myers,   11   Neb.   38S 409,  412,  425 

Dorsey,   In   re,  5   R.   I.   190 253 

Dorsey   v.   Brigham,   177   111.   250 701 

Dorsey  v.  State,  80   Minn.  446 722 

Doty    v.    Jones,    1    Barb.    18 240 

Doty  v.    Strong,   1    Pinn.    (Wis  )     88 68 

Dougherty  v.   Fogle,   50   Ga.   464 437 

Doughty   v.   Devlin,   1    E.    D.    Smith,    625 426 

Douglas   v.    Craig,    13    S.    C.    371 412 

Douglas  County  v.  Timme,  32  Neb.  275 290 

Douglass   v.   Kentucky,   168   U.   S.   496 2S5,   298,   343,   439 

Douglass  v.  Stephens,  1  Del.  Ch.  465 571 

Douglass  County  Road  Co.  v.  C.  &  G.  R.  Co.,  8  Or.  108 362 

Dours    v.    Cazentre,    1    McGloin,    251 417 

Dover  v.  Portsmouth  Br.,  17  N.  H.  200 457 

Dow's    Case,    6    How.    39 584,    586 

Dow  v.  Beidelman,  125  U.  S.  688 365,   719 

Dow  v.  Beidelman,   49   Ark.   325 114,   338,   366 

Dow  v.  Johnson,  100  U.  S.  169 646,  656 

Dowdell,  Petitioner,   169   Mass.   387 711 

Downes   v.   Bidwell,   182   U.   S.   254 30,   88,   472,   482,   599 

Downes    v.    Parshall,    3    Wyo.    425 420 

Downham    v.    Alexandria,    10    Wall.    173 138,    139 

Downs  v.  Allen,  23  Blatchf.  59,  22  Fed.  80S 562 

Downing  v.  Board,  129  Tnd.  449 330 

Doyle,   In   re,   16   R.   I.    537 712 

Doyle  v.  Continental  Ins.  Co.,  94  U.  S.  540 143,  515,  577,  683 

Drady  v.   Des  Moines  etc.  Ry.,   57   Iowa,   293 324 

Draper   v.   Johnson,   CI.    &   H.     710 615 

Draper   v.   United    States,   164   U.    S.    247 513 

Dred   Scott  v.  Sanford,   19   How.   417 

35,  149,  153,  154,  155,  222.  482,  483,  502,  524,   569,  571,  573, 
591,   593,   594,   596,   598,   599,   600,   613,   701 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  r<77 

Drehman    v.    Stifle,    8    Wall.    601 

226,   227,   251,   252,   265,   268,   270,   393,  403 

Dresser  v.  Brooks,  3  Barb.   429 ICO 

Dreueker   v.    Salomon,   21   Wis.    629 -159,   471,    555,   556 

Drew  v.  New  York  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  181  Pa.  St.  46 293 

Drexel   v.    Commonwealth,   46   Pa.    St.    31 297 

Dreyer  v.  Illinois,  1S7  U.  S.  71 633,  711 

Dryden  v.   Commonwealth,   16  B.   Mon.   598 106 

Duanesborough   v.  Jenkins,  57   N.  Y.   177 318 

Dubuque  v.  Illinois   Cent.  R.   R.   Co.,  39  Iowa,  94 379 

Dubuque  v.  Stout,  32  Iowa,  86 454 

Dueat  v.  Chicago,  10  Wall.  415 143,  515,  577,  578,  683,  707,  708 

Dudley  v.  James,  83  Fed.  349 461 

Duer   v.   Small,   4  Blatchf .   263 138 

Duerson,    In    re,    13    Bank.    Reg.    183 159 

Duffield  v.  Smith,  3  Serg.  &  R.  590 201 

Dugan  v.  United  States,  3  Wheat.  179 36,  216 

Duke  v.   Navigation   Co.,   10   Ala.   82 594 

Dulaney  v.   Tilghman,   6   Gill   &   J.   473 392 

Duluth   etc.   Ry.   v.   Douglas   County,   103   Wis.    81 350 

Duluth  etc.  R.  R.  v.  St.  Louis  County,  179  U.   S.  304 380 

Duncan,  In  re,   139  U.   S.  461 72,   603 

Duncan  v.  Atchison  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  72  Fed.  811 679 

Duncan  v.  Darst,  1  How.  308 507,  510,  511,  513 

Duncan   v.   Missouri,    152    U.    S.    382 259,    702,   729 

Duncan   v.   State,   105   Ga.   457 138 

Dundas  v.  Bowler,  3  McLean,  397 356,  357,  391,  527 

Dundee  Mtg.  Trust  Ind.  Co.  v.  Parrish,  24  Fed.  107 277 

Dunham  v.  Lamphire,   3   Gray,   268 129,   436 

Dunn,   Ex  parte,   25   How.   Pr.   467 224 

Dunn    v.    Commonwealth,    105    Ky.    834 724 

Dunn   v.    Stevens,    62    Minn.    380 412 

Dunne  v.  People,  94  111.  120 204,  458,  622 

Dunphy  v.  Kleinsmith,   11   Wall.   614 601 

Dunton  v.  Halstead,  4  Pcnn.  L.  J.   237 68 

Dunwoody  v.  United  States,  143  U.   S.   5S6 236 

Du   Puy,   In   re,    3   Ben.    316 478 

Durand   v.   Hollins,   5   Blatchf.    451 4.59^   483 

Durham   v.   People,   4   Scam.    172 635 

Durham   v.    Railroad,    10S    N.    C.   402 246 

Durkee  v.  Board  of  Liquidation,   103  U.   S.   646 303,   304 

Durrett    v.    Crosby,    28    Tex.    635 29 1 

Dutrher    v.    Wright,    94    U.    S.    557 158 

Dutton   v.  Palairet,   154  U.    S.    563 91 

Dwight   v.   Williams,   4   McLenn,   586 642 

Dyer  v.  Tuscaloosa  B^.  Co.,  2  Port.  296 319,  652 

Dynes'  v.  Hoover,  20  How.  65 199,  200,  631 


778  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Eagan,  Ex  parte,  5  Blatchf .   319 475 

Eagle,   The,   8   Wall.    20 536 

Eagle    Ins.   Co.  v.   Ohio,  153   U.   S.   455 336 

Eakin  v.  Kaub,  12  Serg.  &  E.  372 407 

Eames,   In   re,    2    Story,    322 162 

Earl   v.    Godley,   42    Minn.    362 149,  151 

Earle  's    Case,    CI.    &    H.    314 69 

Earle  v.  Hardie,  80  N.   C.   177 411 

Earle  v.  Johnson,  31  Tex.   164 416 

East   etc.   Ey.  v.  Bushing,   69   Tex.   314 365 

Easterly  v.  Goodwin,  35  Conn.  279 168,  287,  418,  570 

Easterwood  v.  State,  34  Tex.  Or.  409 476,  480 

East  Hartford  v.  Hartford  Br.  Co.,  10  How.  511.309,  310,  313,  360,  397 

East  Lonisana  E.  Co.  v.  New  Orleans,  46  La.  Ann.  526 319,  324 

Eastman  v.    Clackamas   County,   12   Saw.   624,   32   Fed.   31 273 

Eastman    v.    State,    109    Ind.    278 718 

East  on,   Ex   parte,   95   U.   S.    72 534,   535,   537,  538 

Easton   v.    Scott,    CI.    &    H.     276 615 

Eaton    v.    Hasty,    6    Neb.    426 565 

Eaton   v.   Lewis,   115  Fed.   635 185 

Eaves,   In   re,    30   Fed.    23 486 

Ebersole  v.   Adams,   10   Bush,    83 164,  165 

Eckoff  v.  District  of  Columbia,  135  IT.  S.  241 486 

Eclipse   Mfg.    Co.   v.   Holland,.  62  Fed.    468 185 

Eden  v.  Feople,  161  111.  296 721 

Edgerton,   Ex   parte,   59   Fed.    118 128 

Edison  v.  Lubin,  119  Fed.  993 182 

Edison   Light   Co.   v.   New  Haven   Co.,   35  Fed.   237 3S3 

Edmonson    v.    Ferguson,    11    Mo.    344 387,  416 

Edwards'  Case,  CI.  &  H.    92 46 

Edwards  v.  Commonwealth,  78  Va.  42 480 

Edwards  v.   Dixon,  53   Ga.   334 436 

Edwards    v.    Elliott,    21    Wall.    556 538,  668 

Edwards  v.  Jager,  19  Ind.  417 270.  292 

Edwards  v.  Jordan,  105  Ind.  594 413,  423 

Edwards  v.  Kearzey,  96  U.   S.  606 

249,  282,  332,  384,  386,  395,  397,   410,   412,  413 

Edwards   v.   Lesueur,   132   Mo.   440 309 

Edwards    v.    MeCaddon,    20    Iowa,    520 408 

Edwards  v.  Panama,  1  Or.  418 106,  600 

Edwards  v.  Tanneret,  12  Wall.  449 ., 514,  529 

Edwards    v.    Williamson,    70    Ala.    152 3S9 

Edye  v.  Eobertson.     See  Head  Money  Cases. 

Effinger  v.  Kenny,  115  U.  S.  571 437 

Ehle  v.  Brown,   31  Wis.   405 436 

Ehrenzeller   v.   Canal   Co.,   1   Eawle,    181 370,  371 

Eikenberry   v.   Edwards,    67   Iowa,    619 648 

Eilenbeeker  v.  Plymouth  Co.,  134  U.  S.  40 440,  551,  633,  665 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  779 

Eingartner  v.   Illinois   Steel   Co.,   94   Wis.   76 409,   575 

Eingartner   v.   St.   Louis   Steel   Co.,   103   Wis.   373 409,   575 

Ekiu  v.  United  States,  142  U.  S.  662 108,  223,  462,  490,  502,  648 

Eldridge  v.  Binghamton,  120  N.  T.  313 607,  628 

Eldridge    v.    Smith,   34   Vt.    484 653 

Eldridge   v.   Trezevant,   160   U.   S.   469 697,   729 

Electric  Imp.  Co.  v.   San  Francisco,  45  Fed.  593 724 

Electron,   The,   74  Fed.   695 , 536 

Elexena,   The,   53   Fed.    366 536 

Elk  v.  Wilkins,  112  TJ.   S.  102 148,  154,  483,  571,  699 

Elkinson   v.   Dehesseline,   2   Whart.   Cr.    Cas.    56 116 

Ellerman  v.  Mains,     30   La.   Ann.   190 313 

Ellett    v.    Commonwealth,    85   Va.    517 305 

Elliott   v.   Elliott,   38  Md.   362 258,   287 

Elliott  v.  Mayfield,   4  Ala.  423 257,   273 

Elliott    v.    Pearce,   20    Ark.    515 274 

Elton  v.   0;Connor,  6  N.  Dak.  6 166,  417,  418 

Ely  v.  M.  &  B.  Mfg.  Co.,  4  Fish    Pat.  Cas.  64 670 

Ely   v.    Peck,    7    Conn.    239 512 

Emblen  v.  Lincoln  Land  Co.,  184  U.  S.  660 649 

Emblen   v.   Lincoln   Land   Co.,   102   Fed.   559 597 

Emert  v.  Missouri,  156  U.  S.  313 138,  140,  141,  445 

Emery  v.   Greenough,   3   Dall.   369 167 

Empire  City  Bank,  In  re,  18  N.  Y.   199 346,  379 

Endleman   v.    United    States,    86   Fed.    460 79 

Enfield  Br.  v.  Connecticut  Eiver  Co.,  7  Conn.  28 334,  339 

Enfield  Br.  Co.  v.  Eailroad  Co.,  17  Conn.  454.. 341,  359,  360,  371,  657 

Englehart   v.   State,   88   Ala.   100 63S 

English  v.  New  Haven  Co.,  32  Conn.  210 381 

English  v.  State,  35  Tex.  473 622 

Enterprise  Savings  Assn.  v.  Zumstein,  67  Fed.  1005 175,  461,  501 

Erb  v.  Moraseh,  177  U.  S.  585 120,  368,  731 

Erie  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Casey,  26  Pa.  St.  287 3S2 

Erie  E.  B.   Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  158  U.   S.  439 131,   133,   134 

Erie  By.   Co.   v.  Pennsylvania,   21   Wall.   498 133,   348 

Erie  Ey.  Co.  v.  State,  31  N.  J.  L.  541 448 

Erskine  v.  Steele  Co.,  87  Fed.  634 310,  329 

Ervine  's  Appeal,  16  Pa.   St.  256 646,  649 

Erwin  v.  State,  29  Ohio  St.  186 665 

Escandaba  Co.  v.  Chicago,  107  U.  S.  688 96,  97,  98,  103,  114,  595 

Esser  v.  Spaulding,  17  Nev.  289 290 

Essex  etc.  Eoad  Board  v.   Skinkle,  140  U.   S.   342 313 

Eunson   v.   Dodge,    18    Wall.    416 179 

Evans  v.  Eaton,  3  Wheat.  450,  7  Wheat.   356 183,  263 

Evans  v.  Hettich,   7  Wheat.  453 183 

Evans  v.  Jordan,  9  Cr.  199 178,  183,  25:) 

Evans  v.  Meyers,   25   Pa.   St.   114 172 


780  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Evans  v.  Montgomery,  4  Watts    &   S.   218 268,  399,  410,  426 

Evans   v.   Kichmond,    Chase,    551 243 

Evans    v.    Sprigg,   2    Md.    470 163 

Evans  v.  Weiss,  2  Wash.  0.  C.  342 259 

Evansville  etc.  K.  E.  Co.  v.  Commonwealth,  9  Bush,  438 355 

Everett,  In  re,  9  Bank.  Keg.   93 161 

Everhart  v.  Westchester  etc.  B,  E.  Co.,  28  Ba.  St.  339 372 

Everts,  Ex  parte,   1  Bond,   178 507 

Ewell  v.  Daggs,  108  U.  S.  149,  2  S.  Ct.  41 274,  393,  428,  429,  430 

Ewell   v.   Tucker,   1    Blackf.    2S5 309,  316 

Exchange,  The,  v.  McFadden,   7   Cr.   116 199,  216,  542 

Exchange  Bank  v.  Teddy,  67  N.  C.  169 357 

Experiment,   The,    8   Wheat.    264 196 

Express  Co.  v.  Kountze,  8  Wall.  350 219 

Expulsion  of  Senators,  Taf t,  195 64 


in,  Ex  parte,  2   Sprague,  91 224 

Fagan  v.  Illinois,  84  111.  233 84 

Fairbank  v.  United  States,  181  U.  S.  305 27,  30,  233,  524,  611 

Fairfax  v.   Hunter,   7   Cr.   627 481,    570,   612 

Falconer   v.    Campbell,   2    McLean,    195 345 

Fall  v.  Sutter  County,  21  Cal.  252 341,  360 

Fallbrook  Irr.  Dist  v.  Bradley,  164  U.  S.  169 644,  452,  653,  714 

Fall  Eiver  Iron  Works  v.  Bailroad,  5   Allen,  221 372 

Falls   v.   Wadsworth,    23    Me.    553 435 

Fanning   v.   Gilliland,   37    Or.    369 652 

Fanning  v.   Kerr,   7   Iowa,   462 42'J 

Fareira  v.  Keevil,  18  Mo.  188 167 

Fargo  v.  Michigan,  121  U.  S.  238 116,  130,  133,  134,  453 

Farmers'   Bank   v.    Grinnell,    26    Gratt.    131 391,    396 

Farmers'  etc.  Bank  v.  Smith,  6  Wheat.  134 166,  417,  587 

Farmers'  etc.  Bank  v.  Smith,  3  Serg.  &  E.  69 172 

Farmers'   etc.   Ins.   Co.   v.   Dabney,   189   U.   S.   301 732 

Farmers'   etc.   Ins.   Co.   v.   Harrah,   47   Inch   240 109 

Farmers'  Loan  and  Trust  Co.  v.  Chicago  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  27  Fed. 

149 574 

Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Lake  St.  Ey.  Co.,  177  U.  S.  61 512 

Farmers'  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Spruks  Mfg.  Co.,  119  Fed.  594 184 

Farmers'  etc.  Nat.  Bank  v.  Dearing,  91  U.  S.  34 84,  217,  609,  610 

Farnsworth  v.  Montana,  129   U.  S.   113 223 

Farnsworth  v.  Eeeves,  2   Cold.   Ill 389 

Farnsworth  v.  Vance,  3  Cold.  10S 282,  414,  416 

Farnum,  Tn  re,  51  N.  H.  376 311 

Farrand,  In  re,  1  Abb.,  N.  S.,  146 108 

Farrell   v.   Fingree,    5   Utah,   449 265 

Farrington  v.  Tennessee,  95  U.  S.  688 278,  284,  350,  352,  610 

Farwell  v.  Eockland,  62  Me.   300 290 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  781 

Fassett,   In   re,    142   IT.   S.    479 539 

Faulkner   v.   Campbell,   2    McLean,    195 358,  379 

Faw  v.  Marsteller,   2   Cr.   32 91 

Fazende  v.   Houston,   34  Fed.   95 327 

Fearn   v.   Ward,    65    Ala.    39 409 

Felch  v.  Bugbee,  48  Me.  11 162,  167,  168,  417,  567 

Fell  v.  State,  42  Md.  71 344 

Fellows  v.   Blacksmith,   19   How.   372 613 

Fellows  v.  Denniston,  23  N.  Y.  420 612 

Ferguson  v.  Landram,  1  Bush,  548 198 

Ferguson  v.  Lowery,  54  Ala.  510 282 

Ferguson   v.   Miners'   etc.   Bank,   3    Sneed,   609 375 

Ferry  v.  King  Co.,   141  U.   S.   673 520,  522 

Ferris  v.  Higley,  20  Wall.  380 601 

Fertilizing  Co.  v.  Hyde  Park,  97  U.  S.  666 

341,   342,   349,  438,   439,   683,   725,  726 

Fertilizing  Co.  v.  Hyde  Park,  70  111.   634 336 

Fessenden   v.    Willey,    84   Mass.    67 168 

Fetter,  In  re,  3  Zab.  311 5S1,  583,  584,  585,  586 

Ficklen  v.  Shelby  County,  145  U.  S.  21 1'42 

Fidelity  etc.  Life  Assn.  v.  Mettler,  185  U.  S.  308 732 

Fidelity  and  Deposit  Co.  v.  United  States,  187  U.  S.  315 670 

Fidelity  Trust  Co.  v.  Gill  Car  Co.,  25  Fed.  737 504 

Field,  Ex  parte,  5  Blatchf.  80 225,  471,  625,  631 

Field   v.    Clark,    143    U.    S.    671 30,    73,    74,    79,  463 

Fielden  v.  Illinois,  143  TJ.  S.  456 711 

Fielden   v.   Lohens,   6  Blatchf.    524 3S9,  390 

Fife  v.  State,  31   Ark.   458 607,   622,  628 

Fifield   v.   Close,   15   Mich.    505 83,  680 

Finley  v.  Bisbell,   1   Ells.   99 615 

First  National  Bank  v.  Cunningham,  48  Fed.  514 565 

First  Nat.  Bank  v.  Peterborough,  56  N.  H.  42 81 

First  National  Bank  v.  Searlls,  129  Ind.  201 725 

First   National   Bank   v.   Stone,   88   Fed.   411 94 

First  School  Dist.  v.  Ufford,  52  Conn.  44 429 

Fischel  v.  Mills,  55  Ark.  346 479 

Fishback   v.   Baxter,   Taft,    240, 49 

Fisher's   Case,  15  Ct.   of   CI.   323 516 

Fisher  v.   Commonwealth,   1   Bush    (Ky.),   211 637 

Fisher   v.    Green,   142    111.    93 423 

Fisher  v.  Hepburn,  48  N.  Y.  52 499 

Fisk  v.  Jefferson  Police  Jury,  116  U.  S.  13  1 2S4,  287 

Fisk   v.   Montgomery,   21   La.   Ann.   446 164 

Fisk  v.  Union  Pacific  E.  E.  Co.,  6  Blatchf.   362 514,  519 

Fiske,  Ex  parte,  72   Cal.   125 725,  731 

Fitch   v.   Bright 's   Case,    Taft,    164 58 

Fitch   v.   Eailroad   Co.,   30   Conn.   38 360 


782  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Fitchburg  E.  R.  Co.  v.  Grand  Junction  R.  R.  Co.,  86  Mass.  198..   3S1 

Fitzgerald  v.  Grand  Trunk  Ry.  Co.,  63  Vt.   169 385 

Fitzpatrick  v.  Hearne,  44  Ala.  171 388 

Flagg  v.   Baldwin,   38  N.   J.   Eq.   224 288 

Flanders  v.  Tweed,  9  Wall.  429 673 

Flannagan  v.  Philadelphia,  22  Pa.  St.  219 99 

Fleet  v.  Hagenran,  14  Wend.  42    130 

Fleitas  v.   Coekrem,   101   U.   S.   301 673 

Fleming  v.  Holt,   12  W.  Va.   144 404 

Fleming  v.  Page,  9  How.  615 194,  223,  467,  472,  594 

Flemming  v.   Stahl,  83  Fed.   940 491 

Fletcher  v.  Peck,  6  Cr.  87 29,  78,  113,  226,  227, 

239,  251,  253,  264,  282,  283,  284,  292,  293,  332,  502,  524,  679,  682 

Fletcher  v.  Rultand  etc.  R.  R.,  13  Vt.  535 293 

Flewellin  v.  Proetzel,  80  Tex.   191 325 

Flint    v.   Woodhull,   25   Mich.    99 382 

Flint  etc.  Co.  v.  Foster,  5  Ga.  213 673 

Florida  v.  Georgia,  17  How.  478 456,  545,  546,  685 

Florida  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Bell,  176  U.  S.  334 529 

Florida  Central  R.  R.  v.  Reynolds,  182  U.  S.  481 731 

Florentine   v.   Barton,   2   Wall.   210 432 

Florio,  In  re,  43  Fed.   115 108 

Flourney,   In   re,   1   Kelly    (Ga.),   606 479 

Floyd   v.   Blanding,   54   Cal.   41 269,   295 

Floyd  v.  National  Loan  etc.  Co.,  49  W.  Va.  327 728 

Floyd  Acceptances,  The,  7  Wall.  675 89 

Fogg  v.  Williams,   2   Head,  474 294 

Folsom  v.  United  States,  4  Ct.  of  CI.  366 233 

Foltz    v.    Kerlin,    105    Ind.    223 4S5 

Fong  Yue  Ting  v.  United  States,  149  U.  S.   716 

108,  154,  462,  463,  484,  502,  613,  648,  700 

Foot   v.   Buchanan,   113   Fed.   156 640,  641 

Foote   v.  Johnson   County,  5   Dill.   285 272  ■ 

Foote  v.  State,  59  Md.  264 675 

Forbes   v.   Seannell,   13    Cal.    242 483 

Ford  v.  Delta  etc.  Land  Co.,  164  U.  S.  668 350,  351 

Ford  v.  Delta  Pine  Land  Co.,  43  Fed.  181 303,  304 

Ford  v.  Hale,  1  T.  B.  Mon.  23 '. 396 

Ford  v.  Surget,  97  U.  S.   605 193,   195,  243 

Forgay  v.  Conrad,  6  How.  206 547 

Forscheimer  v.   Holly,   14  Fla.   239 38S 

Forstall  v.  Consolidated  Assn.,  34  La.  Ann.  770 306 

Forster   v.   Forster,   129   Mass.   566 275 

Forsyth's  Case,  CI.   &  H.  497 42 

Forsyth  v.  Hammond,  166  U.  S.  519 188 

Forsyth  v.  Marbury,  R,  M.  Charlt.  324 385,  409,  411 

Forsyth  v.  United  States,  9  How.  572 548 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  783 

Forsythe  v.  City  of  Hammond,  68  Fed.  774 714 

Fort  Leavenworth  E.  E.  v.  Lowe,  114  U.  S.  525 208,  209 

Fort  Plain  Bridge  Co.  v.  Smith,  30  N.  Y.  44 330,  377 

Fort   Smith   v.   Dodson,  46   Ark.    300 650,  726 

Foseue   v.   Lyon,   55   Ala.   441 282 

Foster  v.   Chamberlain,   41   Ala.   156 282 

Foster  v.  Davenport,  22   How.   244 124 

Foster  v.  Essex  Bank,  16  Mass.  245 346,  399,  401 

Foster  v.   Gray,  22   Pa.   St.   9 436 

Foster  v.  Jackson,  57   Ga.  206 668 

Foster  v.  Mansfield  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  146  U.  S.  101 521 

Foster  v.  Neilson,  2  Pet.  314 461,  462,  4S1,  501,  611,  612,  613 

Foster  v.  New  Orleans,  94  U.  S.   247 124,   611 

Foster   v.    Police    Commrs.,    102    Cal.    483 257 

Fouke  v.   Trumbull,  1  Bart.   167 40,  41 

Fountain  v.  Eevenel,  17  How.  3S4 187,  497,  505,  677 

Fourteen  Diamond  Eings  v.  United  States,  183  U.  S.  1S1 482 

Fourth  Nat.  Bank  v.  Francklyn,   120  U.  S.  755 405 

Fowler  v.  Lindsay,   3   Dall.  412 526,   545,   688 

Fox  v.  Ohio,  5  How.  433.  .171, 173,  174,511,601,619,627,635,  663,668 

France  v.   State,   57   Ohio   St.   22 706 

France  v.  United  States,  164  U.  S.  682 176 

Francia  Hatch,  The,  25  Fed.  Cas.   1204 463 

Francis  Wright,  The,  105  U.  S.  384 547 

Francois,  Ex  parte,  3   Woods,   367 702,  704 

Franklin  v.   Schermerhorn,   8  Hun,   112 299 

Franklin    v.    State,    85    Ga.    570 636 

Franklin   v.   Thurston,   8   Blackf .   161 425 

Franklin  Bank  v.  State,  1  Black,  47£ 352 

Franklin  County  Court  v.  Deposit  Bank,  87  Ky.  370 352 

Frasher  v.  State,  3  Tex.  App.  273 680,  6S2,  701,  704 

Frazer,   Ex   parte,   54   Cal.    94 718 

Frazer  v.  Seibern,  16  Ohio  St.  622 92 

Free  v.   Howarth,   19   Ind.   404 431 

Freeborn  v.   Smith,   2  Wall.   175 399,   401,   548,  595 

Freedman   v.  Sigel,   10   Blatchf.   328 83 

Freeland  v.  Williams,   131  U.   S.   420 273,   285,  391 

Freeman   v.   Howe,   24   How.   450 508- 

Freeman  v.  Eobinson,  7  Ind.  323 590 

Freight  Cases,  95  N.   C.  428 115 

Freligh  v.  State,   8  Mo.   606 297 

Frelinghuysen  v.  Baldwin,  12  Fed.   335 490 

Frellson  v.  Mahan,  21  La.  Ann.  104 277 

Fremont    v.   United   States,   17    How.    542 513 

French  v.  O'Brien,  52  How.  Pr.  394 163 

French  v.  Tumlin.  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5104 434 

Fretz    v.    Bull,    12    How.    468 534,  536 


784  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Frevail  v.  Bache,  14  Pet.  97 482 

Frey  v.   Habenstreit,   1   Lob.   561 413 

Frey  v.  Kirk,  4  Gill  &  J.    509 167 

Frierson  v.  Geneial  Assembly,  7  Heisk.  705 244 

Freis   v.   Brugler,   12   N.   J.   L.    79 641 

Frisbie  v.  United  States,  157  U.  S.  165 630 

Fritts  v.   Palmer,   132   U.   S.   288 143,   577,  70S 

Frolickstein   v.   Mobile,   40   Ala.   725 620 

Froment   v.  Duclos,   30   Fed.   385 498,  544 

Frost   v.   People,    193   111.    635 727 

Fry  v.  Lexington  etc.  E.  R.  Co.,  2  Met.   (Ky.)   322 372,  373 

Fry   v.   State,   63   Ind.   552 122 

Fugitive  Slave   Law,   The,  1  Blatchf.   635 591 

Fulty  v.  Fox,  9  B.  Mon.  499 266,  286 

Furman  v.  Nichol,  8  Wall.   63 355 

Gableman  v.  Peoria  etc.  Ey.  Co.,  179  U.  S.  339 520,  522 

Gabler  v.  Elizabeth,  42  N.  J.  L.  79 327 

Gage  v.   Gage,  66  N.  H.   294 273 

Gage    v.    Stewart,    127    111.    207 279 

Gaines  v.  Buford,  1  Dana,  510 226,  251,  256,  257,  258  292,  293 

Gaines    v.    Chew,    2    How.    619 523 

Gaines  v.  Coates,  51  Miss.  335 

Gaines  v.  Fuentes,  92  U.  S.   18 187,   503,  506,  514,  51S 

Gaines    v.    Eelf,    15    Pet.    17 547 

Gaines  v.   Eives,  8  Ark.   220 249 

Gaines   v.    Thompson,    7    Wall.    350 460,    461,493 

Gainesville  etc.   Ey.  Co.  v.  Hall,  78   Tex.   169 655 

Gainesville   Mfg.   v.   Eoper,   15   Eich.    138 356 

Galena   v.   Amy,   5   Wall.    709 317,  328 

Galena  etc.  Ey.  v.  Loomis,  13  111.  548 115,  336,  343,  367,  368,  442 

Gallatin's    Case,   CI.   &   H.    851 53 

Galley   v.    Ginshard,    27    La.    Ann.    396 315 

Gallup    v.    Schmidt,    183    U.    S.    307 645,  714 

Galpin    v.    Page,    18   Wall.    367 511 

Galveston   etc.  E.   E.  v.   Texas,  177  U.   S.   103 247,  373 

Galveston   Co.   v.   Gorham,   49   Tex.   279 138 

Gans,  Ex  parte,  5  McCrary,  395,   17  Fed.  473 500 

Gantly   v.   Ewing,   3   How.   717 397,   413,   415,    424,  425 

Garcia  v.  Lee,  12  Pet.  516 462,  482,  502 

Garcia  v.  Territory,  1  N.  Mex.  415 675 

Gardner 's    Case,   2   Johns.    477 584,  586 

Gardner  v.   Jeter,   49   Ga.   195 437 

Gardner    v.    Lee 's    Bank,    11    Barb.    558 170 

Gardner  v.   New  Jersey,   1   Pet.   Adm.   227 537 

Gardner   v.   The   Collector,  6  Wall.   506 72,     73 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  785 

Garland,    Ex   parte,   4   Wall.    380 226,    227 

228,  229,  253,  254,  257,  258,  476,  477,  478,  479,  612,  615,  619,  620 

Garland   v.   Irrigation   Co.,   9   Utah,   360 268,  427 

Garlington   v.   Priest,   13   Fla.   559 413 

Garnett,   In   re,   141   U.    S.    12 107,   535,   536,  539 

Garr  v.   Clements,  4   N.   Dak.   559 426 

Garrabad,   In    re,   84   Wis.    585 731 

Garrett   v.   Cheshire,   69   N.    C.    403 412 

Garrett  v.  Cardell,  43  Ga.   366 431 

Garrett   v.   Memphis,   5  Fed.   860 326 

Garrett    v.    Weinberg,    54    S.    C.    144 259 

Garrison  v.  New  York,  21  Wall.   203 263,  326,  341 

Gas  and  Water  Co.  v.  Downington,  175  Pa.  St.   341 310 

Gas   Co.   v.  Parkersburg,  30  W.  Va.   439 341 

Gassies   v.  Ballon,   6  Pet.   762 155,   532,   570,  701 

Gates   v.   Bucki,   53   Fed.    966 188 

Gates   v.   Lansing,    5    Johns.    282 223 

Gatzweiller  v.  People,   14   111.    142 310,316 

Gault's    Appeal,    33    Pa.    St.    194 389,424 

Geer  v.  Connecticut,  161  U.  S.  531 101,   112,  128 

Geery,  Appeal  of,  43  Conn.  289 164 

Geissler,  Ex  parte,  9  Biss.  492,  4  Fed.   188 56 

Galena  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Appleby,  28  111.  283 368 

Gelpi  v.   Treasurer,   48  La.   Ann.   1537 448 

Gelsthorpe    v.    Turnell,   20   Mont.   307 232 

Gelston   v.   Hoyt,   3  Wheat.   323 494,   500,  502 

General   Smith,   The,   4   Wheat.   443 536,  537 

Genessee   Chief  v.  Fitzhugh,  12  How.   456 30,   97,   534,   535,  536 

Gentile    v.    State,    29    Ind.    409 130 

Geofroy  v.  Biggs,  133  U.  S.  266 4g2,  571 

George  v.  Concord,  45  N.  H.  434 89,  90,  171,  213,  218 

George    v.    Gardner,    49    Ga.    441 406,  408 

Georgia   v.    Brailsford,    2    Dall.    402 527,545 

Georgia  v.   Georgia  etc.   Co.,  54   Ga.  426 289 

Georgia  v.  Stanton,   6   Wall.   77 460,   462,   468,   491,   501,   522,  526 

Georgia  etc.  Co.  v.  Macon,  60  Fed.  774 139 

Georgia   etc.   Co.   v.   Mayor,   6  Fed.   780 139 

Georgia  etc.   Companies  v.  Nelms,  71   Ga.  301 30g 

Georgia   Packing   Co.    v.   Mayor,    60   Fed.    779 124 

Georgia  E.  E.  etc.  Co.  v.  Smith,  128  U.  S.  174 338,   366,  720 

Georgia   E.   E.   v.  Smith,   70   Ga.   700 341 

German   Savings  Bank  v.   Archbold,   15   Blatchf.   402 87 

Gholson   &   Claiborne's  Case,  1  Barb.  9 46    47      60 

Gibbes  v.  G.  &  C.  B,  E.  Co.,  13  S.  C.  242 '....'  281 

Gibbes  v.  Town  Council  of  Beaufort,  21  S.  C.  217 360 

Gibbins  v.  District  of  Columbia,  116  U.  S.  404 44    205 

Notes  on  Constitution — 50 


786  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Gibbons  v.  Livingston,   6   N.  J.  L.   236 . 563 

Gibbons  v.  Ogden,  9  Wheat.  191 27,  31,  79,  80,  82,  95,  96, 

98,  99,  100,  101,  104,  108,  109,  111,  113,  118,  123,  125,  129,  215, 

221,  222,  235,  396,  443,  447,  448,  449,  450,  451,  611,  677,  678,  680 

Gibbs   v.    Green,   54   Miss.    592 304 

Giboney  v.   Cape  Girardeau,  '58  Mo.   141 311 

Gibson   v.   Chouteau,   13    Wall.    99 597 

Gibson    v.   Hibbard,   13    Mich.    219 393,  429 

Gibson   v.   Mississippi,   162   U.   S.   589 256,  261 

Gilchrist  v.  Helena  etc.  R.  E.,  47  Fed.  595 356 

Giles  v.  Harris,  189  U.   S.  475 739 

Gilfillan  v.  Union  Cent.  Canal  Co.,  109  U.  S.  404 404,  420 

Gill  v.   Scowden,   14  Phila.   626 309,  316 

Gillan  v.  Board  of  Regents,   88  Wis.   13 291 

Gillespie   v.   People,   188   HI.   176 049,    712,  713 

Gilman   v.   Contra   Costa   County,   8   Cal.  '52 327 

Gilman    v.    Cutts,    23    N.    H.    376 408 

Gilman  v.  Lockwood,  4  Wall.  411 418 

Gilman   v.   Philadelphia,   3   Wall.    725 

96,  97,  101,  103,  113,  114,  124,  129,  139,  441,  678,  680,  681 

Gilman   v.    Sheboygan,   2   Black,   513 300,304 

Gilman  v.  Tucker,  128  N.  Y.  190 268,  286,  427 

Gilmer  v.  Lime  Point,   18   Cal.   229 610,  652,  658 

Gilnrore   v.   Sapp,    100    111.    297 642 

Giltner  v.   Gorham,  4  McLean,  402 591 

Giovanna,   In   re,   93    Fed.    660 700 

Giozza  v.  Tiernan,  148  U.  S.  662 440,  698,  706 

Girard  College,  Ex  parte,  31  Leg.  Int.  164 342, 

Gist,  Ex  parte,  26  Ala.   156 490,   498,  503,  511 

Gittings    v.    Crawford,    Taney,-  5 498,  544 

Given  v.  Wright,  117  U.  S.  657 303 

Gladney  v.   Sydnor,  172   Mo.   318 257 

Gladson    v.    Minnesota,    166    U.    S.    421 307 

Glascow   v.   Bowse,   43   Mo.   489 80 

Glaspell  v.  Northern  Pacific  R.  R.  Co.,  144  U.  S.  219 '595 

Glass  v.  Blackwell,   48   Ark.   54 565 

Glenearne,  The,  7  Saw.  202,  7  Fed.  607 104 

Glenn,  Ex  parte,  111  Fed.  257 634 

Glenn  v.   Clabaugh,   65  Md.   69 168,  287 

Glenn   v.   Hodges,   9   Johns.   67 591 

Glenn  v.  Humphreys,  4  Wash.  C.  C.  424 419 

Glenn  v.  Williams,  60  Md.  113 565 

Glidden   v.   Harrington,   189   U.   S.   255 714 

Glide,  The,  167  U.  S.  615 '519,   534,   53S,  541 

Globe  Ins.  Co.  v.  Cleveland  Ins.  Co.,  10  Fed.  Cas.  491 164 

Gloucester  Ferry  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  114  U.  S.  203 

100,  102,  105,  107,  132,  133,  453 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  787 

Gloucester  Ins.  Co.  v.  Younger,  2  Curt.   333 534,  537 

Glover  v.  Powell,  10  N.  J.  Eq.  211 295 

Goenen   v.   Sehroeder,   8   Minn.   387 423 

Goetze  v.  United  States,  103  Fed.  72 480 

Goggins  v.  Turnipseed,  1  Kich.,  N.  S.,  80 390,  413,  414 

Golden  v.  Prince,  3  Wash.   C.   C.   313 154,  387,  417 

Goldey  v.  Morning  News,  156  U.  S.  521 562 

Goldsmith  v.  Brown,  5  Or.  418 328 

Gon-Shay-Ee,  Petitioner,   130  U.  S.  349 509 

Good   v.   Martin,   95   U.   S.   98 508 

Goodale  v.  Fennell,  27   Ohio  St.  426 318,  325,  389,  390 

Goodall  v.   Tuttle,  3   Biss.   219 161 

Goode  v.  Epes,  53  Cong.  Rep.  1952 615 

Goodell  v.  Jackson,  20  Johns.  693 149,  150,  151 

Goodhue 's  Case,  1  City  H.  Eec.  153 584,  586 

Goodrich   v.   Detroit,   184   U.  S.   439 645 

Goodtitle  v.  Kibbe,  9  How.  477 129 

Gordon 's   Case,   7   Ct.   of   CI.   1 503 

Gordon   v.  Appeal  Tax   Court,   3   How.   147 352,  354 

Gordon  v.  Canal  Co.,  1  McA.  513 268,  426 

Gordon  v.  Hobart,  2  Sum.  401 523 

Gordon  v.  Ker,  1  Wash.   C.  C.  322 613 

Gordon  v.   United   States,   117   U.   S.   704 38,  548 

Gorely  v.  Butler,  147  Mass.  12 162,  417 

Gorham   v.   Wing,   10   Mich.   498 422 

Gorham  Co.  v.  White,  14  Wall.  o24 184 

Gorman  v.  Pacific   R.   R.   Co.,  26  Mo.  441 336,  368 

Goshen   v.   Richmond,   86   Mass.   461 393 

Goshen  v.  Stonington,  4  Conn.  209 274,  434 

Gotchens  v.  Matheson,  40  How.  Pr.  97,  58  Barb.  192 227,  228 

Gottfried  v.  Phillip  Best  Co.,  10  Fed.  Cas.  851 184 

Gottschalk  v.   Meyer,   28  La.   Ann.   8S5 16u 

Gougar  v.   Timberlake,   148   Ind.   47 701,  738 

Gould  v.  Mayor,  55  Ga.  685 574 

Governeur's  Heirs  v.  Robertson,  11  Wheat.   350 156 

Governor    v.    Gridley,   Walk.    328 415 

Governor    v.    Maclrazo,    1    Pet.    122 526,    527,687 

Governor  of  Georgia  v.  Slaves,  1  Pet.  124 545 

Gowen  v.  Harley,  56  Fed.  979 356 

Gowen  v.   Shute,  4  Baxt.   63 246 

Gozzler    v.    Georgetown,    6    Wheat.    598 318 

Grace  v.  American  Cent.  Ins.  Co.,  109  U.  S.  283 505 

Grafflin's    Case,    1    Bart.    464 55 

Graffty    v.    Rushville,    107    Ind.    502 v  .   141 

Graham    v.    Bayne,    18    How.    62 543 

Graham    v.    State,    7    Ind.    470 432 

Graham   v.   Stucken,   4   Blatchf .   50 542 


788  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Grammar   School   v.   Bailey,   62   Vt.   478 292 

Grammar  School  v.  Burt,   11  Vt.   682 308 

Grand  Gulf  etc.   R.  R.  v.  Buck,  53  Miss.  246 350 

Grand  Lodge  v.  New  Orleans,  166  U.  S.  149 301,  349 

Grand   Rapids   v.   Braudy,   105   Mich.    670 717 

Grand  Trunk  Ry.  Co.  v.  Backus,  46  Fed.  214 97 

Grannahan  v.  Railroad  Co.,  30  Mo.  546 345 

Grant  v.  Leach,  20  La.  Ann.  331 340 

Grant   v.   Raillon,   20   How.    169 539 

Grant    v.    Raymond,    6    Pet.    218 183 

Grapeshot,   The,    9    Wall.   132 472,  498,  509,  514 

Gratiot  v.  United  States,  14  How.  117 200,  470,  486 

Gray  v.  Coffin,  63  Mass.  192 345 

Gray    v.    Coffman,    3    Dill.    401 150 

Gray  v.  Connecticut,  159  U.  S.  74 718 

Gray  v.  Monongahela  Nav.  Co.,  2  Watts    &  S.  160 274 

Gray   v.   Monroe,  1   McLean,   532 273 

Grayson  v.  Lilly,  7  Mon.   6 413 

Grayson   v.   Virginia,   3   Dall.   320 526,  527 

Great  Falls  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Attorney  General,  124  U.  S.  597 659,  660 

Greathouse,  In  re,  4  Saw.  499 476 

Great  Southern  Hotel  Co.  v.  Jones,  177  U.  S.  455 530 

Greeley   v.    Townsend,   25    Cal.   604 514 

Green,  In  re,  134  U.   S.   379 464,   466,  691 

Green,   Ex  parte,   114   Fed.   959 141 

Green   v.   Abraham,   43   Ark.   424 274 

Green   v.   Biddle,   8  Wheat.   89 

2-64,  282,  2)83,  293,  341,  385,  386,  389,  391,  402,  450,  451,  457,  672 

Green  v.  Biddle,  3  Smedes  &  M.    673 624 

Green   v.   Briggs,   1    Curt.   311 643 

Green  v.  Drinker,  7  Watts   &  S.  440 392 

Green   v.   Elbert,   63  Fed.  309 736 

Green  v.  Goodall,  1  Cold.  404 392 

Green   v.   Holway,    101    Mass.    250 676 

Green  v.   Salas,   31  Fed.   107 153 

Green  v.  Sarmiento,  1  Pet.  C.  C.  74 564,  5o8 

Green  v.  Schroeder,  8  Minn.  387 391 

Green  v.  Shumway,  39  N.  Y.  418 252,  258 

Green   v.   Sizer,   40   Miss.   530 246 

Green  v.   State,  58  Ala.   190 704,   730 

Green   v.    State,   66    Ala.   40 666 

Green  v.  Van  Buskirk,  7  Wall.  145 568 

Green  v.  Weller,  32  Miss.  652 32 

Greenfield  v.  Dorris,  1  Sneed,  548 388,  412,  423,  425 

Greenleaf  v.  Township,  22  111.  236 312 

Greenough,  Ex  parte,  31  Vt.  279 579,  583,  585 

Greensboro  v.  Ehrenreich,  80  Ala.  579 125 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  789 

Greenwood  v.  Freight  Co.,  105  U.  S.  22 369,  376,  378,  382,  657 

Greenwood  v.  State,  64  Ind.  250 637 

Gregg  v.  Hilsen,   34  Leg.   Int.   20 165 

Gregory  v.  Gregory,  78  Me.  190 563 

Gregory   v.    Morris,    96    U.    S.    625 91 

Gregory  v.  Shelby,  2  Met.   (Ky.)   589 297 

Grenada  County  v.  Brogden,  112  U.  S.  272 329 

Grether  v.  Wright,  75  Fed.  753 85,  92 

Gretna  Green,  The,  20  Fed.  902 100,   112 

Griffin,  Ex  parte,  25   Tex.  Supp.   623 606 

Griffin's  Case,   Chase,  364 31,   734 

Griffin  v.  Martin,  7  Barb.  297 726 

Griffin  v.  Kentucky  Ins.   Co.,  3  Bush,  592 . 340,  377 

Griffin  v.  McKenzie  7   Ga.   166 406 

Griffin  v.  Wilcox,  21  Ind.  370 224,  225,  468,  474,  475,  647 

Griffith  v.  Bank,  4   Mo.   255 247 

Griffith  v.  Thomas,  34  Leg.  Int.  150 414 

Griffiths  v.  Shipp,  49  Ga.  231 437 

Grignon   v.   Astor,   2    How.    341 505,  518 

Grimball  v.  Boss,  Chailt.   175 386,  387,  415 

Grimes  v.  Byrne,  2  Minn.  89 410,  412 

Grimes  v.  Doe,  8  Blackf .  271 393 

Grimes  v.  Eddy,  126  Mo.  168 125,  126 

Grimley,  In  re,  137  U.  S.  150 200 

Grimm  v.  Wiessenberg  School  Dist.,  57  Pa.  St.  435 229,  275,  393 

Griner,  In  re,  16  Wis.   423 198,   469 

Grissom  v.  Hill,  17  Ark.  489 263 

Griswold's   Case,   Taft,   94 53 

Griswold  v.  Bragg,  18  Blatchf.  208 391,  395,  403 

Griswold  v.  Hepburn,  2  Davall,  29 : 171,  249 

Griswold  v.   Pratt,  9  Met.   17, 163,  164 

Griswold  v.  Waddington,  16  Johns.  449 193 

Grogan  v.   San   Francisco,   18   Cal.   590 292,  313 

Gross  v.  United  States  Mortgage  Co.,  108  U.  S.  477 274,  392,  430 

Grosvenor  v.  Chesley,  48  Me.  369 404,  414 

Groton   v.   Hurlburt,   22    Conn.    1S6 98 

Grove  v.  Mott,  46  N.  J.  L.   328 473,  475 

Grove  v.  Todd,  41  Md.  633 392 

Grover  v.   Coon,  1  N.  Y.  536 430 

Grover  v.  KadclifTe,  137  U.  S.  295 562,  565 

Grover  etc.  Co.  v.  Butler,  53  Ind.  454 183 

Groves  v.  Slaughter,  15  Pet.  449 28,  95,  119,  222,  270.  591 

Grubbs  v.  Harris,  1  Bibb,  567 433 

Guenther  v.   People,   22   Colo.   121 635 

Guild  v.  Rogers,   8   Barb.    502 399.  403 

Guilford   v.    Supervisors,    13    N.    Y.    1432 315 

Guillote  v.  New  Orleans,  12  La.  Ann.  432 663 

Gulf  etc.  By.  v.  Dwyer,  75  Tex.  572 103,  113,  115,  120 


790  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Gulf  etc.  Ey.  Co.  v.  Eddins,  7  Tex.  Civ.  App.  116 121 

Gulf  etc.  Ry.  v.  Ellis,  165  U.  S.  155 443,  731 

Gulf  etc.  By.  Co.  v.  Hefley,  158  U.  S.  102 102,  115 

Gulf  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Hewes,  1^3  U.  S.  71 302,  374 

Gulf  etc.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Nelson,  4  Tex.  Civ.  App.  345 120 

Gulf  etc.  Ey.  Co.  v.  State,  72  Tex.  404 121 

Gumm  v.  Hubbard,  97  Mo.  311 700 

Gundliug  v.  Chicago,  177  U.  S.  183 441,  717,  732 

Gunn  v.  Barry,  8  Bank.  Eeg.  1 161,  263,  269,  385 

Gunn  v.  Barry,  15  Wall.  €23.  .263,  269,  281,  396,  397,  398,  409,  411,  412 

Gunn  v.  White  Sewing-Machine  Co.,  57  Ark.  35 105,  107 

Gunther  v.  City  of  Baltimore,  55  Md.  457 131,  452 

Gurney  v.  Walsham,  16  E.  I.  698 426 

Gut  v.   State,  9   Wall.   37 ! 260 

Gutierrez,  Ex  parte,  45  Cal.  430 255 

Guy  v.  Baltimore,  100  U.  S.  434 139,  235,  444,  574 

Gyer  's  Lessees  v.  Irwin,  4  Dall.   107 66 

Hacker,  In  re,  73  Fed.  467 223 

Hackley  v.  Geraghty,  34  N.  J.  L.  332 455 

Hagan  v.   Lucas,   10  Pet.   404 513 

Hagar,  Ex  parte,  104  U.   S.  521 538 

Hagar  v.  Reclamation  Dist.,  Ill   U.   S.   708 

82,  91,  295,  684,  709,  715 

Haggerty  v.  Illinois  Mfg.  Co.,  143  Mo.  243 128 

Hagood  v.  Southern,  117  U.  S.  67 ,. .  .  545,  688 

Hague  v.  Powers,  39  Barb.  427 27,  89,  90,  171,  249 

Hale   v.   County   Commissioners,    137    Mass.    114 331 

Hale  v.  Huston,  44   Ala.   134 247,  386 

Haley  v.  State,  42  Neb.  559 127,   146 

Hall,  In  re,  167  U.  S.  42 187 

Hall  v.  Boardman,  14  N.  H.  3S 168,  169 

Hall  v.   Carey,  5   Ga.   239 337,   420 

Hall  v.  De  Cuir,  95  U.  S.  512 101,  102,  104,  106,  117 

Hall  v.  Hall,  43  Ala.  502 239,  241 

Hall  v.   State,  130  Ala.  90 635 

Hall  v.  Wells,  54  Miss.  301 272 

Hall  v.   Williams,   6  Pick.   243 170 

Hall   v.   Winchell,   38  Vt.   588 170 

Hall  v.  Wisconsin,  103  U.  S.  8 2S2,  2S9,  304 

Hallinger  v.  Davis,  146  U.   S.   320 627,   708 

Hamill  v.  Littner,  7  Pac.  707 277 

Hamilton  v.  Avery,  20  Tex.  634 294 

Hamilton  v.  Brown,  161   U.   S.   250 296 

Hamilton  v.  Dillin,  21  Wall.  97 196,  216 

Hamilton   v.    Keith,    5   Bush    (Ky.),    45S 338 

Hamilton  v.  Railroad   Co.,  34  La.   Ann.  973 103 

Hamilton   Av.,  In  re,  14  Barb.  405 359 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  791 

Hamilton  Co.  v.  Massachusetts,  6  Wall.  639 82,  84,  92    447 

Hamilton  Gaslight  Co.  v.  Hamilton  City,  146  U.  S.  266 

271,  281,  325,  370,  374,  378,  391 

Hammond   v.   Herrick,    CI.    &   H.    289 69 

Hammond  v.   Place,   116  Mich.   628 326 

Hampton,   The,   5   Wall.    376 196 

Hampton    v.    MeConnell,    3    Wheat.    235 564 

Hanauer  v.  Doane,  12  Wall.  345 243,  557 

Hanauer  v.  Woodruff,  15  Wall.  439 243,  248,  386,  388 

Hancock  v.   Ewing,   55   Mo.   101 308 

Hancock   v.   Eitchie,    11    Ind.    48 431 

Hancock  v.  Singer  Mfg.  Co.,  62  N.  J.  L.  343 232,  350,  352,  378,  447 

Hancock   v.   Yaden,    121   Ind.    370 213 

Hancock  National  Bank  v.  Farnum,  176  U.  S.  644 ; 564 

Handley's   Estate,   In   re,    15   Utah,   22'6 402 

Handlin  v.  Wickliffe,  12  Wall,  175 473 

Handy  v.   Clark,  4  Houst.   6 694 

Haney  v.  Sharp,  1  Dana,  442 512,  520 

Hanford  v.  Davies,  163  U.  S.  279 505 

Hanford  v.  Davies,  51  Fed.   259 271,   272 

Hanley  v.  Donoghue,  116  U.  S.  3 563 

Hannah  v.  Fife,   27   Mich.   172 307 

Hannibal  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Chacklett,  30  Mo.  550 354 

Hannibal  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Marion,  36  Mo.  294 320 

Hannum  v.  Mclnturf,  6  Baxt.  225 410,  412 

Hanover  Bank  v.  Smith,  13  Blatchf.  225 515 

Hanover  National  Bank  v.  Moyses,  186  TJ.  S.  18 159,  263,  646 

Hanrick  v.   Hanrick,   54  Tex.    114 157 

Hans  v.  Louisiana,  134  U.  S.  11 306,  686 

Hanson,  Ex  parte,  28  Fed.  127 141 

Hansrick  v.  Rouse,  17  Ga.  56 316,  433 

Harbin   v.   Bell,   54   Ala.   389 282 

Harbison  v.  Knoxville  Iron  Co.,  103  Tenn.  421 647,  728 

Harbor  Master  v.  Southerland,  47  Ala.  516 455 

Hardeman  v.  Downer,   39  Ga.  425 410,  412    604 

Harding  v.    Alden,   9    Me.    150 266 

Harding  v.   People,   160   111.   459 642,   712 

Hardy,  Ex  parte,  68  Ala.  318 402 

Hardy   v.   Waltham,    24    Mass.    10S 302,    351 

Harlan  v.  People,  1  Doug.   (Mich.)    207 174 

Harlan  v.  Sigler,  1  Morris,  39 396,  432 

Harley  v.  State,  40  Ala.  697 156,  241 

Harmison  v.  Lewistown,   153  111.   313 717 

Harmon  v.  Chicago,  147  U.  S.  413 97,  144 

Harmon  v.  United  States,  50  Fed.  922 176 

Harold  v.  Herrington,  95   Ala.   395 327 

Harriet,   The,    1   Story,    260 191 

Harrigan  v.  Connecticut  L.  Co.,  129  Mass.  580 103,  119 


792  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Harris  v.  Shaw,   13  111.   456 316 

Harrisburg,    The,    119    U.    S.    209 540 

Harrison   v.   Gieen,   18   Cal.   91 454 

Harrison  v.  Mayor,  3   Sn.edes  &   M.   581 132,   444,  445 

Harrison  v.  Styres,  74  N.  C.   290 387,  415 

Harrison    v.    Young,    9    Ga.    151 360 

Hart,  Ex  parte,  59  Fed.   895 582 

Hart 's  Case,  16  Ct.  of  CI.    459 239 

Hart   v.   Cornwall,    14   Conn.    22S 302 

Hart  v.  Gilbert,  Taft,  321 50 

Hart  v.  State,  40  Ala.  22 253,  256 

Hart  v.   United  States,   118  U.   S.   65 478 

Hartford  Br.  Co.  v.  East  Hartford,  16  Conn.  149 334,  373 

Hartford  Br.  Co.  v.  Union  Ferry  Co.,  29  Conn.  210 334,  360 

Hartford  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Doyle,  6  Biss.  465 78 

Hartford  Fire  Ins.   Co.  v.  Baymond,  70  Mich.  502 143,  577 

Hartman  v.  Aveline,  63  Ind.  344 580 

Hartman   v.   Beehtel,   1   Woodw.   Dec.   32 339,   361,  362 

Hartman   v.   Fishbeck,   18   Fed.    295 510 

Hartman  v.  Greenhow,  102  U.  S.  672 276,  282,  288,  289 

Hartnung   v.   People,   22   N.   Y.    95 253,   254,  256 

Harvey  v.  Ehode  Island  L.  Works,  93  U.  S.  671 682 

Harvey  v.  Virginia,  20  Fed.  411 30.) 

Hasbrouck   v.    Shipman,   16   Wis.    296 416 

Haskell  v.  City  of  Burlington,  30  Iowa,  232 278 

Haskell  v.  Jones,  86  Pa.  St.   173 179 

Haskett    v.   Maxey,    134   Ind.    191 272 

Hastings  v.  Fowler,  2  Ind.   216 160 

Hatch    v.    Burroughs,   1    Woods,   439 243,  388 

Hatch  v.  Spofford,  22  Conn.  497 239,  456 

Hatch  v.  Willamette  Iron  Br.  Co.,  7  Saw.  127 96 

Hauenstein  v.  Lynham,  100  U.  S.  489 484 

Havemeyer    v.    Iowa    County,    3   Wall.    303 272 

Haverill  Bridge  Props,  v.  County  Commissioners,  103  Mass.  120..  657 

Haverty  v.  Bsss,  66  Me.  71 725 

Hawaii,  Territory  of,  v.  Mankichi,  190  U.  S.  197 599,  632,  667 

Hawkins,  Ex  parte,  61   Ark.   324 478 

Hawkins,    In    re,    34    Conn.    348 164 

Hawkins  v.  Barney,  5  Pet.  468 406 

Hawkins  v.  Filkins,  24  Ark.  2S6 241,  270 

Hawkins  v.   Lawrence,   8   Blackf .   226 82 

Hawkins  v.  Learned,  54  N.  H.  333 165 

Hawley  v.  Hunt,  27  Iowa,  307 168,  169,  287,  418 

Hawley  v.  Hurd,  72  Vt.  122 708,  728 

Hawthorn   v.   People,   109   HI.   302 118 

Hawthorne  v.   Calef,  20  Wall.   10 345,   398,  400 

Hay  v.  Hill,  65  Cal.  383 277 

Ha'vburn's  Case,  3  Dall.  409 38,  516 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  793 

Hay-den  v.  Thompson,  71  Fed.  63 337 

Hayes  v.  Clinkscales,  9  Rich.  441 388 

Hayne,  Ex  parte,  1  Hughes,  571 464 

Haynes   v.   State,   Humph.   4S0 290 

Hays  v.  Pacific  Mail  S.  S.   Co.,  17  How.   593 131,  137 

Hazel  Kirke,  The,  25  Feci.  605 ' 98 

Hazen   v.   Union   Bank,   1   Sneed,   115 270,  357 

Head  v.  Amoskeag  Mfg.  Co.,  113  U.  S.  26 654 

Head  v.  Porter,  48  Fed.  487 185 

Head  v.  University,  9  Wall.  531 291 

Head  Money  Cases,  112  U.  S.  5S0 88,  96,  108,  4S4,  521 

Head   Money   Cases,   18   Fed.   135 232 

Heaclnotes  to  Opinions,  In  re,  43  Mich.  641 307 

Health  Department  v.  Eector,  145  N.  Y.  32 716,  725 

Hebard,  Ex  parte,  4  Dill.  384 209 

Hedges  v.  Price,  2  W.  Ya.  231 195 

Hedgman   v.    State,   2i6   Mich.    151 739 

Hefferlin    v.   Sinsinderf er,   2   Kan.   403 425 

Hefferman    v.    Porter,    6    Cold.    396 473 

Hegeman  v.  Western  E.  E.,  16  Barb.  353 120 

Hegler  v.  Faulkner,   153   U.   S.   117 460 

Heilbron,    In    re,    14    Wash.    536 410 

Helena   v.    Dwyer,    64   Ark.    424 718,    722 

Helf enstein  v.  Cave,  3  Iowa,  289 412 

Helm  v.  First  National  Bank,  43  In.l.   167 183 

Helm  v.  Webster,  85  111.  116 264 

He-mpstead  v.  Eeed,  6  Conn.  480 162,  169,  417 

Henderlite  v.  Thurman,  22  Gratt.  480 590,  693 

Henderson  v.  Griffin,  5  Pet.   155 188 

Henderson  v.  Mayor,  92  U.  S.  259.  .95,  104,  108,  116,  119,  125,  447,  681 

Henderson  v.  Merchants'  Mut.  Ins.  Co.,  25  La.  Ann.  343 386,  388 

Henderson   v.   Tompkins,   60   Fed.    763 180 

Henderson  Br.  Co.  v.  Henderson  City,  141  U.  S.  689 132 

Henderson  Br.  Co.  v.  Henderson  City,  173  U.  S.  623 81,  132 

Henderson  Bridge  Co.  v.  Kentucky,  166  U.  S.  154 131,  132 

Henderson  E.  E.  v.  Dickerson,  17  B.  Mon.  177 229,  273 

Henkel,   In    re,   2   Saw.   305 412 

Hcnnen,  Ex  parte,  13  Pet.  230 4S5,  486,  487,  490 

Hennick,   In   re,   5   Mackey,   4S9 142 

Hennington  v.  Georgia,  163  U.  S.  315 117,  121,  620,  721 

Henry,   In   re,   123   U.   S.    375 176 

Henry  v.  Henry,  31   S.   C.   1 406,  408 

Henry   v.    State,    33   Ala.    389 636 

Henry  Ward,  Ex  parte,  173  U.  S.  456 488 

Hepburn   v.    Curts,    7   Watts,    300 399,  429 

Hepburn  v.  Ellzey,  2  Cr.  453 206,  532 

Hepburn   v.   Kerr,   9    Humph.    728 424 


794  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Hepburn  v.  Griswold,  8  Wall.  616 S9,  90,  91,  213,  263,  611,  673 

Herbert  v.  Easton,  43   Ala.   547 435,   437 

Herera  v.  State,  35  Tex.  Cr.  607 636 

Herman   v.   Phalen,   14   How.    SO 269,  402 

Herrick   v.   Niesz,    16   Wash.    78 43 1 

Herrick  v.  Kandolph,  13  Vt.  525 233,  293,  301,  302 

Herring  v.   Selding,   2   Aikens,   17 413 

Herschf eld  v.  Dexel,  12   Ga.  586 288 

Hess  v.  Johnson,  3  W.  Va.  645 253 

Hess  v.   Muir,   65   Md.   605 291 

Hess  v.  Werts,  4  Serg.  &  E.  356 392 

Hester  v.  Memphis  etc.  B.  E.,  32  Miss.  3S0 372 

Hester  v.  Watkins,  54  Ala.  44 23  L 

Hevren  v.  Eeed,  126  Cal.  222 298,   343,  441 

H.  E.  Willard,  The,  53  Fed.  599 540,  541 

Hewitt  v.  New  York  etc.  E.  E.,  12  Blatchf.  407 301,  353,  379 

Hewitt     v.  Story,  64  Fed.  523 42 

Heyneman  v.  Blake,  19  Cal.  579 652 

Heyward,  Ex  parte,  1  Sand.  701 586 

Heyward  v.  Judd,  4  Minn.  483 400,  422,  423,  425 

Hibler   v.    State,   43   Tex.   201 579,   584 

Hickman  v.  Hickman,  1  Wash.  257 242,   258,  287 

Hickman   v.    Jones,    9    Wall.   200 6S5 

Hickox  v.   Tallman,   38   Barb.   608 436 

Hicks  v.   Cleveland,   106  Fed.   429 317 

Hicks  v.  Euhartonah,  21  Ark.  106 147 

Hicks  v.  Hotchkiss,  7  Johns.   Ch.   297 .417,  418 

Higgins  v.  Keuffel,  140  IT.  S.  431 178,  181,   1S2 

Higgins  v.   Lime,   130   Mass.   13 611 

Higgins   v.   Einker,    47    Tex.    381 440 

High  v.   Coyne,   93   Fed.   451 93,   231,   232 

High  Bridge  Lumber  Co.  v.  United  States,  69  Fed.  325 660 

Hilands  v.   Commonwealth,   114   Pa.    St.   372 635 

Hill's  Case,  2  Opin.  Atty.  Gen.   336 492 

Hill,   Ex  parte,   38   Ala.   450 204 

Hill  v.  Boyland,  40  Miss.   618 244,  408,  413,  615 

Hill  v.  Glascow  E.  E.,  41  Fed.  616 376,  377,  383 

Hill  v.  Insurance  Co.,  134  IT.  S.  527 433 

Hill  v.  Kessler,  63  N.  C.  440 411,  412 

Hill   v.  Low,  4  Wash.   C.   C.   326 591 

Hill  v.  Merchants'  Ins.  Co.,  134  IT.  S.  527 398 

Hill   v.    Smith,   1   Morris,    70 394,  430 

Hillibert   v.  Porter,   28   Minn.   496 394 

Hinckley  v.  Chicago  etc.  E.  E.,  38  Wis.  91 383 

Hine,  The,  v.  Trevor,  4  Wall.  555 510,  534,  535,  536,  539,  540 

Hinkle   v.   Eipfert,   6   Pa.   St.   196 429 

Hinkley  v.  Mareau,  3  Mason,  88 167,  169,  418 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  795 

Hinmon   v.   Goodyear,   56   Conn.   210 429 

Hinson  v.  Lott,  8  Wall.  148 86,  102,  444,  447 

Hinton   v.   Hinton,   Phill.    (N.    C.)     410 265 

Hiriot  v.  Ballou,  9  Pet.   167 671 

Hirn  v.   Ohio,  1  Ohio   St.  21 297 

Hirsch's  Case,  15  Ct.  of  CI.   385 659 

Hitchcock  v.   Aiken,  1   Caines,  460 32 

Ho  Ah    Kow  v.  Nunan,  5  Saw.   552 728 

Hobart    v.    Drogan,    10    Pet.    120 53S 

Hobbs,   Ex   parte,   1   Woods,   542 704 

Hobbs,   Ex   parte,   32   Tex.    Cr.   312 584,  586 

Hobbs  v.  Manhattan  Ins.  Co.,  56  Me.  417 515 

Hockett  v.  State,  105  Ind.   259 649 

Hodge's  Case,  18  Ct.  of  CI.  700 73 

Hodges  v.   Easton,   106  IT.  S.   411 673 

Hodgson  v.  Bowerbank,  5  Cr.  303 503,  505,  533 

Hodgson  v.  Millward,  3  Grant,  406 514,  519,  520,  64S 

Hodgson  v.  Vermont,  168  U.  S.  272 710 

Hoff  v.  Jasper   County,  110  IT.   S.  53 320 

Hoffman  v.   State,  20   Md.   425 633,  634 

Hoge's   Case,   CI.   &   H.    135 47.55 

Hogg  v.  Canal  Co.,  5  Ohio,  410 2S2 

Hogg  v.  Emerson,  6  How.  486 183,   185 

Hoke   v.   Henderson,   4   Dev.    15 646 

Holden  v.  Hardy,  169  IT.  S.  392 438,  442,  703,  704,  721 

Holden  v.  Joy,  17  Wall.  242 149,  482,  595,  613 

Holden  v.  Minnesota,  137  IT.  S.  495 256,  262,  711 

Holgate  v.  Oregon  etc.  E.  K.,  16  Or.  124 434 

Holladay  v.  Auditor,  77  Va.  430 290 

Hollen,  The,  1  Mason,  431 479 

Holler  v.  Fox,  51  Fed.  298 537 

Holley  v.  New  York  City,  59  N.  Y.  170 4S7 

Hollida   v.   Hunt,   70   111."  Ill 86,   179,  183 

Hollingsworth   v.   Thompson,   45   La.   Ann.   222 65 

Hollingsworth  v.  Virginia,  3  Dall.  381 75,  607,  683 

Hollingsworth  Parish  v.  Tensas,  4  Woods.  288,  17  Fed.  115 654 

Hollister  v.  Benedict  Mfg.  Co.,  113  U.  S.  73 184,  185 

Hollister  v.  Union  Co.,  9   Conn.  436 295,  628 

Holloway  v.   Sherman,  12  Iowa.   282 417,  435 

Holly  Springs  Co.  v.  Marshall,  52  Miss.  281 349 

Holman   v.   Bank,   12   Ala.   417 257 

Holmes  v.  Hunt,  122  Mass.  516 435 

Holmes  v.  Hurst,  174  U.  S.  86 179,  180,  181,  182 

Holmes  v.  Jennison,  14  Pet.  540 

32,  124,  240,  456,  457,  483,  504.  586.  587,  676,  681 

Holmes  v.  Lansing,  3  Johns.  Cas.   73 400 

Holmes  v.  Oregon  etc.  E.  E.,  Co.,  7  Saw.  386,  9  Fed.  232 499 


796  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Holmes  v.   Sevier,  154  U.   S.  583 693 

Holt,  In  re,  104  Fed.  336 56 

Holt  v.  State,  2  Tex.  363 262 

Holyoke  Co.  v.  Lyman,  15  Wall.  512. .  .341,  369,  371,  393,  377,  378,  380 

Home  Ins.  Co.  v.  Augusta,  93  U.  S.  122,  123 263,  297 

Home  Ins.  Co.  v.  New  York,  134  U.  S.  594 85,  93,  731 

Home  Ins.  Co.  v.  Virginia-Carolina  etc.  Co.,  109  Fed.  681 669 

Home  of  the  Friendless  v.  Rouse,  8  Wall.  437 278,  301,  303,  333 

Homestead  Cases,  22  Gratt.  283.. 240,  241,  270,  281,  411,  412,  413,  605 

Homestead  Co.  v.  Valley  R.  R.,  17  Wall.  166 598 

Honduras  Com.  Co.  v.  State  Board,  54  N.  J.  L.  27S 133 

Hood    v.    Maxwell,    1    W.    Va.    219 240,685 

Hood  v.  State,  56   Ind.  263 562 

Hooe  v.  Jamieson,  166  U.  S.   397 206,   529,  532 

Hooker  v.  New  Haven   etc.   Co.,  15  Cow.   322 331 

Hooper,    In    re,    57    Wis.    702 580,582 

Hooper  v.  California,  155  U.  S.  657 109,  145,  214,  524,  577,  611 

Hoover   v.   McChesney,   81   Fed.   478 176,  461 

Hope   v.   Henderson,   4   Dev.   15 643 

Hope  v.  Johnson,  2  Yerg.   125 401 

Hope  Insurance  Co.  v.  Boardman,  5  Cr.  57 530 

Hope  Mutual  Ins.  Co.  v.  Flynn,  38  Mo.  483 435 

Hopkins   v.    Commonwealth,   3   Bush,   481 622 

Hopkins  v.  Jones,   23   Ind.   310 404,  433 

Hopkins  v.  United  States,  171  U.  S.  504 113 

Hoppack  v.   Stone,  49  Barb.   524 429 

Hoppin  v.  Jenekes,  8  R.  I.  453 67 

Hopt   v.   Utah,   110   U.   S.   578 260,  666 

Borland  v.  Pack,  Peek    (Tenn.),   151 151 

Horn  v.  Loekhart,  17  Wall.   581 244,   281,  685 

Horn  v.   Wiatt,   60   Ala.   300 409 

Hornbuckle  v.  Toombs,  18  Wall.   655 600 

Home  v.  State,  84  N.  C.  362 433 

Horner  v.  United  States,  143  U.  S.  578 176,  484,  613 

Horn  Silver  Min.  Co.  v.  New  York,  143  U.  S.  314 

107,   132.   143,   144,  577,   578,  70S 

Horntrager  v.  Bates,  IS  Iowa,   174 90 

Hospital  v.  Philadelphia,  22  Pa.  St.  229 349 

Hotema  v.  United  States,  186  U.  S.  413 637 

Hough,  Ex  parte,  69  Fed.   330 140 

Houghton,  Ex  parte,  7  Fed.  658,   8  Fed.  897 173,  218 

Houghton  v.  Maynard,   71   Mass.   552 168 

Houston,   In  re,  47  Fed.   539 141 

Houston   v.   Deloach,   43    Ala.   464 281 

Houston  v.  Jefferson  College,   63  Pa.   St.   428 308,  374 

Houston   v.  Moore,  5  Wheat.   49 

31,  154,  172,  176,  1S7,  202,  203,  204,  496,  497,  509,  542,  559,  677 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  797 

Houston  etc.  Nav.  Co.  v.  Insurance  Co.,  89  Tex.  1 110,  121 

Houston  etc.  Ry,  Co.  v.  Texas,  170  U.  S.  261, 270,  364 

Houston  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Texas,  177  U.  S.  97 246,  247,  305,  684 

Houston  etc.  Ey.  v.  Texas  etc.  Ey.,  70  Tex.  657 293 

Hovelman   v.   Kansas   City   Ey.,   79   Mo.   632 324 

Hovey   v.   Elliott,   167   U.   S.   417 642 

Howard  v.  Bugbee,  24  How.  461 413,  422,  424 

Howard  v.  Insurance  Co.,  13  B.  Mon.   282 346 

Howard   v.   Moot,   64   N.   Y.    262 435 

Howe  Machine  Co.  v.  Gage,  100  U.  S.  679 140 

Howell  v.  Miller,  91  Fed.  135 182,  688 

Howell  v.  State,  3  Gill,  14 131 

Howker  v.  New  York,  170  N.  Y.  196 252,  256 

Hows  v.  Middleborough,  108  Mass.  127 203 

Hubbard   v.   Brainerd,   35   Conn.    563 429 

Hubbard  v.  Callahan,  42  Conn.  524 390 

Hubbard  v.  Hamden  Exp.  Co.,  10  E.  1.  249 243 

Huber  v.  Eeily,  53  Pa.  St.  112 39,  155,  510,  511,  643,  683 

Hudson  v.  Parker,  156  U.  S.  282 543,  675 

Hudson  v.  Schwab,  12  Fed.  Cas.  815 163 

Hudspeth  v.  Carrigues,  21  La.  Ann.  684 735 

Hudspeth   v.   Davis,    41    Ala.    389 413,  416 

Huff  v.  Winona  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  11  Minn.  192 335 

Huffman  v.  Western  Mortgage  etc.  Co.,  13  Tex.  Civ.  App.  170..   577 

Hughes,  Ex  parte,  Phill.   (N.  C.)    57   473,  581 

Hughes  v.   Cannon,   2   Humph.   589 392 

Huling  v.  Kaw  Valley  E.  E.  Co.,  130  U.  S.  564 653 

Hull,  Ex  parte,  12  Fed.   Cas.  856 158 

Hull   v.   State,   29  Fla.   79 280,  424 

Humboldt,    The,    86   Fed.    351 539 

Humphrey  v.  Pegues,  16  Wall.  224 355 

Humphrey  v.  Sadler,  40  Ark.   102    2S1,   290 

Humphreys  v.  United  States,  1  Dev.  204 500 

Humphries  v.  District  of  Columbia,  174  U.  S.  195 674 

Hundley   v.    Chaney,   65    Cal.    363 166,  421 

Hung  Hang,  Ex  parte,  108  U.  S.  552 549 

Hunnieutt  v.  State.  18  Tex.  App.  519 480 

Hunsaker   v.   Borden,    5    Cal.    288 316,  322 

Hunsaker  v.  Wright,   30  111.   146 272 

Hunt,   Appellant,   141   Mass.    520 24S 

Hunt,  Ex  parte,  10  Ark.  288 47^ 

Hunt  v.   Gregg,   2   Blackf.    105 415 

Hunt   v.   Hunt,    131    U.    S.    clxv 266,  286 

Hunt  v.  Hunt,  72  X.  Y.  217 682 

Hunt   v.   Jacksonville,   34  Fla.   501 63S 

Hunt   v.  Palao,  4  How.   590 219,   548,   599 


798  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Hunt  v.   Thomas,  3  Phila.   121 414 

Hunter,  Ex  parte,  2  W.  Va.  159 228 

Hunter   v.    Cobb,    1    Bush,    239 388 

Huntington  v.  Attrill,  146  IT.  S.  672 546,  561,  565,  566 

Huntington   v.   Bishop,   5   Vt.   186 668 

Huntington   v.    Cheesbro,   57   Ind.    74 139 

Huntington  v.  Mahan,  142  Ind.  695 95,  142 

Huntington  v.   Texas,   16   Wall.   413 244 

Huntress,  The,  2  Ware   (Dav.  82),  89 29,  534,  535,  670 

Huntsman   v.  Eandolph,  5   Hay w.   263 265 

Huntizinger   v.   Brock,   3   Grant,   243 415 

Hurf ord  v.  State,  91  Tenn.  699 141 

Hurman  v.  Beef  Slough  etc.   Co.,  S  Biss.   344 103 

Huron   v.   Second   etc.   Bank,   86   Fed.   281 356 

Hursey  v.  Hassam,  45  Miss.  133 115 

Hurst  v.  Warner,   102  Mich.   238 125 

Hurtado  v.   California,  110  U.  S.  535 32,  643,  709,  710 

Huse  v.  Glover,  119  U.  S.  548 103,  451,  455,  595 

Huston  v.  Wadsworth,  5  Colo.  213 668 

Eyatt  v.  Esmond,  37  Barb.  601 375 

Hyatt  v.  McMahon,  25  Barb.  457 3S0 

Hyatt  v.  New  York,  188  U.  S.  691 580 

Hyatt  v.  Whipple,  37  Barb.  595 375 

Hyde  v.  Continental  Trust  Co.,  157  IT.  S.  654 231,  232 

Hyde  v.  White,  34  Tex.   145 72 

Hyde  Park  v.  Oak  Woods  Cem.  Assn.,  119  111.  114 342 

Hyde's  Ferry  Turnpike  Co.  v.  Davidson  County,  91  Tenn.  291... 

362,  363 

Hylton  v.  United  States,  3  Dall.  175 45,  86,  231,  232,  233,  524,  611 

Hynes  v.  Briggs,  41  Fed.  470 142,  448 

lasigi,  In  re,  79  Fed.  755 497 

Illinois  v.  Illinois  Cent.  E.  E.,  33  Fed.  71 329 

Illinois  v.  Michigan  Cent.  E.  E.  Co.,  14  111.  314 342 

Illinois  v.  Wright,  28  111.  509 91 

Illinois  etc.  Canal  v.  Chicago  etc.  E.  E.,  14  111.  314 360,  362 

Illinois  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Adams,  180  IT.  S.  37 527 

Illinois  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Bentley,  64  111.  441 333 

Illinois  Cent.  Ey.  Co.  v.  Bosworth,  133  IT.  S.  104 479,  559,  560 

Illinois  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  141  111.  602 651 

Illinois  Cent.  Ey.  Co.  v.  Decatur,  147  IT.  S.  198 80 

Illinois  Cent.  Ey.  Co.  v.  Illinois,  146  IT.  S.  453 438,  593 

Illinois  Cent.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  McLean  County,  17  Til.  291 272,  289 

Illinois  Central  Ey.  v.  People,  143  Til.  434 120,  367 

Immigration  Commissioners  v.  Brand,  26  La.  Ann.  31 119 

Improvement  Co.  v.  Slack,  100  IT.  S.  648 87 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  799 

Independent  Dist.  v.  Beard,  83  Fed.  14 499 

Independent  Ins.  Co.,  In  re,  1  Holmes,  103 163 

Indian  etc.  Eoad  v.  Robinson,  13  CaJ.  519 362 

Indiana  v.  American  Exp.  Co.,  7  Biss.  230 116,  134,  453 

Indiana  v.  Pullman  Car  Co.,  11  Biss.  566 107 

Indiana  v.  Woram,  6  Hill,  33 246 

Indiana  County  v.  Agricultural  Soc,  85  Pa.  St.  359 324 

Indianapolis  etc.  Co.  v.  Kercheval,  16  Ind.  84 346,  368,  369 

Indianapolis  etc.  B.  R.  Co.  v.  Backus,  154  U.  S.  349 644 

Indianapolis  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Backus,  133  Ind.  609 132 

Inglefritz  v.  Inglefritz,  5  Watts,  158 421 

Inglehart  v.  Wolfin,  20  Ind.  32 421 

Toman  v.  Tripp,  11  R.  I.  525 655 

Inman  S.  S.  Co.  v.  Tinker,  94  TJ.  S.  245 451,  452,  454,  678 

Inglis  v.  Sailors'  Snug  Harbor,  3  Pet.  121 570,  571 

Insurance  Co.  v.  Commonwealth,  87  Pa.  St.  183 109,  145 

Insurance  Co.  v.  Comstock,  16  Wall.  358 669 

Insurance  Co.  v.  Dunn,  19  Wall.  226 514 

Insurance  Co.  v.  Harris,  97  TJ.  S.  336 564 

Insurance  Co.  v.  Morse,  20  Wall.  458 188,  515,  577 

Insurance  Co.  v.  New  Orleans,  1  Woods,  85 572,  578,  208 

Insurance  Company  of  North  America  v.  Commonwealth,  87  Pa. 

St.  182 578 

International  Ins.  Co.  v.  Scales,  27  Wis.  640 280 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission,  In  re,  53  Fed.  479 500 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Brimson,  154  TJ.  S.  447 

78,  98,  101,  115,  212,  213,  214,  215,  501,  520,  524,  648 

Iowa  Cent.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Iowa,  160  TJ.  S.  393 574,  644,  665,  707,  709 

Iowa  City  v.  Foster,  10  Iowa,  189 291 

Iron  City  Bank  v.  Pittsburgh,  37  Pa.  St.  340.  .292,  353,  371,  376,  379 

Iron  Mountain  Ry.  v.  Memphis,  96  Fed.  126 281 

Irvine,  Ex  parte,  74  Fed.  954 641 

Irvine  v.  Marshall,  20  How.  563 520,  521,  597,  669 

Irvine  v.  Townpike  Co.,  2  Penr.  &  W.  474 373 

Isaacs  v.  Richmond,  90  Va.  31 243,  281 

Tsley  v.  Merian,  61  Mass.  242 419 

Iverson  v.  Shorter,  9  Ala.  713 268,  427 

Jack  v.  Martin,  12  Wend.  311 591 

Jackson,  Ex  parte,  96  TJ.  S.  735 175,  219,  620,  626 

Jackson,  In  re,  14  Blatchf.  245 175,  176,  213,  214 

Jackson  v.  Ashton,  8  Pet.  149 529 

Jackson   v.  Bullock,  12   Conn.   38 576 

Jackson  v.  Butler,  8  Minn.  117 574 

Jackson  v.  Chew,  12  Wheat.  162 188 

Jackson  v.  Lamphire,  3  Pet.  280 293,  394,  397,  406,  608 

Jackson  v.  Linn,  4  Litt.  323 395 


800  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Jackson  v.  Rose,  2  Va.  Cas.  34 497,  510 

Jackson  v.  The  Magnolia,  20  How.  296 535,  536 

Jackson  v.  Twentyman,  2  Pet.  136 532,  533 

Jackson  v.  "Wood,  7  Johns.  290 149 

Jackson  v.  Wood,  2  Cow.  819 663 

Jacksonville  v.  Jacksonville  Co.,  67  111.  540 373 

Jacksonville  v.  Ledwith,  26  Fla.  103 716 

Jacob  v.  Louisville,  9  Dana,  114 659 

Jacobs,  Ex  parte,  12  Abb.  Pr.,  K.  S.,  273 165 

Jacobs,  In  re,  98  N.  Y.  112 611,  654,  716 

Jacobs  v.  Marx,  182  U.  S.  595 566 

Jacobs  v.  Smallwood,  63  N.  C.  112 390,  411,  413,  414,  434 

Jaeobson  v.  "Wisconsin  etc.  B.  E.  Co.,  71  Minn.  528 120,  719 

Jacobs'  Pharmacy  Co.  v.  Atlanta,  89  Fed.  246 440 

Jacoway  v.  Denton,  25  Ark.  625 195,  201,  263,  270 

Jacquins  v.  Commonwealth,  63  Mass.  2S2 393 

James  v.  Campbell,  104  U.  S.  358 185 

James  v.  Commonwealth,  12  Serg.  &  E.  220 675 

James  v.  Emmet  Min.  Co.,  55  Mich.  335 428 

James  v.  Milwaukee,  16  Wall.  161 340 

James  v.  Eeynolds,   2  Tex.  251 642 

James  v.  Stull,  9  Barb.  4S2 423 

James  Gray,  The,  v.  John  Fraser,  21  How.  187 103,  119 

James  Eiver  Co.  v.  Thompson,  3  Gratt.  270 341 

Janesville  v.   Carpenter,  77  Wis.  288 78,  713 

Janesville  Bridge  Co.  v.  Stoughton,  1  Pinn.  672 360 

Janney  v.  Columbian  Ins.  Co.,  10  Wheat.  418 536 

January  v.  January,  7  Mon.  542 414 

Janvrin  v.  Scammon,  29  N.  H.  2S0 641 

Jarrolt  v.  Moberly,  103  U.  S.  5S6 27 

Jefferson  Bank  v.  Skelley,  1  Black,  436.. 289,  299,  300,  332,  348,  352 

Jecker  v.  Montgomery,  13  How.  515 471,  509 

Jenkins  v.  Charleston,  96  U.  S.  449 276 

J.  E.  Rumbelk  The,  149  U.  S.  15 510,  538,  541 

Jervey,  Ex  parte,  66  Fed.  9(31 128 

Jervey  v.  The  Carolina,  66  Fed.  1019 128 

Jett  v.  Commonwealth,  18  Gratt.  953 174 

J.  L.  Mott  Iron  W.  v.  Clow,  83  Fed.  318 181 

Johns '  Case,  Taf t,  1 52 

Johnson's  Case,  Taft,  215 64 

John  M.  Welch,  The,  9  Bon.  507 455 

Johnson,  Impeachment  of 54 

Johnson,   In  re,  167  IT.  S.  125 513 

Johnson  v.  Bently,  16  Ohio,  97 394 

Johnson  v.  Chicago  Elevator  Co.,  119  IT.  S.  397 

115,   221,  234,   235,  537.  539 

Johnson  v.  Commonwealth,  7  Dnna,  338 289 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  801 

Johnson  v.  Drummond,  20  Gratt.  419 452,  453 

Johnson  v.  Duncan,  3  Mart.  530.  .  .225,  385,  397,  402,  414,  415,  428,  433 

Johnson  v.  Fletcher,  54  Miss.  628 410 

Johnson  v.  Goodyear  Min.  Co.,  127  Cal.  4 728 

Johnson  v.  Hanscom,  90  Tex.  329 71 

Johnson  v.  Higgins,  3  Met.  (Ky.)  566 396,  416,  433 

Johnson  v.  Johnson,  30  Mo.  72 151 

Johnson  v.  Jones,  44  111.  142 225,  648 

Johnson  v.   Lewis,   2  Mont.   159 667 

Johnson  v.  Mcintosh,  8  Wheat.  589 473 

Johnson  v.  Monell,  Woolw.  390 514 

Johnson  v.  People,  173  111.  134 228 

Johnson  v.  Bichardson,  44  Ark.  373 274 

Johnson  v.  Boockogy,  23  Ga.  183 401 

Johnson  v.  Sayre,  158  U.  S.  114 200,  470 

Johnson  v.  State,  88  Ala.  180 340 

Johnson  v.  Tompkins,  1  Baldw.  598 591,  686 

Johnson  v.  United  States,  5  Mason,  438 488 

Johnson  v.  Winslow,  64  N.  C.  27 43 1 

Johnson  County  v.  Wharton,  152  U.  S.  260 187,  503,  505 

Johnston  v.  Eiley,  13  Ga.  97 581,  583,  585 

Johnston  v.  Van  Dyke,  6  McLean,  441 273 

Johnston  v.  Wilson,  2  N.  H.  203 488 

Joice  v.  Scales,  18  Ga.  725 561 

Joliffe  v.  Brown,  4  Wash.  155 720,  721 

Jollie  v.  Jacques,  1  Blatchf .  618 181 

Jolly  v.  Terre  Haute  D.  Co.,  6  McLean,  237 100 

Jones,  Ex  parte,  164  U.  S.  692 419 

Jones'  Appeal,  57  Pa.  St.  369 266,  2S6 

Jones  v.  Bank  of  Tennessee,  8  B.  Mon.  123 '245 

Jones  v.  Board  of  Eegistrars,  56  Miss.  768 480 

Jones  v.  Brandon,  48  Ga.  593 270,  411 

Jones  v.  Brim,  165  U.  S.  182 698,  723,  731 

Jones  v.  Commonwealth,  20  Gratt.  848 635 

Jones  v.  Crittenden,  1  Car.  Law   Eep.  385 3S8,  389,  401,  414 

Jones  v.  Davis,  6  Neb.  33 400 

Jones  v.  Eisler,  3  Kan.  134 148 

Jones  v.  G.  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  16  Iowa,  6 368 

Jones  v.  Hobbs,  4  Baxt.  113 2S7,  290,  307 

Jones  v.   Horsey,  4  Md.   306 170 

Jones  v.  Jones,  2  Over.  2 258,  287 

Jones  v.  Keep,  19  Wis.  376 83 

Jones  v.  Leonard,  50  Iowa,  110 585 

Jones  v.  McMahan,  30  Tex.  319 416 

Jones  v.  McMasters,  20  How.  20 532 

Jones  v.  Mann,  2  Bart.  471 41 

fSTotes   on    Constitution — 51 


302  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Jones  v.  Meehan,  175  U.  S.  1 148 

Jones  v.  Overstreet,  4  T.  B.  Mon.  550 250 

Jones  v.  Pensacola,  13  Fed.  Cas.  1005 309 

Jones  v.  People,  2  Colo.  509 668 

Jones  v.  Perry,  10  Yerg.  59 643 

Jones  v.  Handle,  68  Ala.  264 280 

Jones  v.  Seward,  40  Barb.  563 475 

Jones  v.  Seward,  3  Grant,  431 225 

Jones  v.  Smith,  48  Barb.  552 91 

Jones  v.  State,  1  Ga.  610 261 

Jones  v.  State,  66  Miss.  380 636,  637 

Jones  v.  United  States,  137  U.  S.  212 

188,  462,  494,  502,  523,  553,  554 

Jones  v.  Van  Zandt,  5  How.  229 590,  591,  592 

Jones  &   Garland  v.  McDonald  &  Eice,  Taft,  282 49 

Jonesboro  v.  Cairo  etc.  E.  E.,  110  U.  S.  197 320 

Jones  v.  Walker,  2  Paine,  688 614 

Jordan,  Tn  re,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7514 161 

Jordan,  In  re,  8  Bank.  Beg.  186 159,  399 

Jordan  v.  Dayton,  4  Ohio,  294 186 

Jordan  v.  Dobson,  4  Fish,  232 178 

Jordan  v.  Hall,  9  E.  I.  220 165 

Jose  Ferreira  Dos  Santos,  In  re,  2  Brock.  507 190 

Joseph  v.  Eandolph,  71  Ala.  490 117,  143 

Joseph,  The,  8  Cr.  455 196 

Jourdan  v.  Barrett,  4  How.  185 596 

Journeay  v.  Gardner,  65  Mass.  355 170 

Joy  v.  Jackson  County,  11  Mich.  155 370 

Joy  v.  Thompson,  1  Doug.  383 40S 

J.  S.  Keator  etc.  Co.  v.  St.  Croix  etc.  Corp.,  72  Wis.  82 101,  103 

Judd  v.  Ives,  4  Met.  401 162 

Judd  v.  Porter,  7  Me.  340 169 

Judson  v.  Bradford,  14  Fed.  Cas.  9 184 

Juillard  v.  Greenman,  110  U.  S.  440 89,  90,  91,  213,  214.  218 

Julia  v.  McKinney,  3  Mo.  270 575 

Julienne  v.  Mayor,  69  Miss.  34 727 

Juniata  Limestone  Co.  v.  Fagley,  187  Pa.  St.  193 713 

Justice  v.  Eddings,  75  N.  C.  581 432 

Justices  v.  Murray,  9  Wall.  274 607.  668,  672 

J.  W.  French,  The,  5  Hughes,  429 646 

Kaieser  v.  Illinois  Cent.  E.  E.  Co.,  5  McCrary,  499, 18  Fed.  153.  .96,  .107 

Kaine,  In  re,  14  How.  103 459,  493,  499,  549,  587 

Kane  v.  Durston,  153  U.  S.  687 711 

Kansas  v.  Colorado,  185  IT.  S.  142 546 

Kansas  City  v.  Bacon,  147  Mo.  273 654 

Kansas  City  v.  Ward,  134  Mo.  177 654 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  803 

Kansas  Indians,  The,  5  Wall.   758 148 

Kansas  etc.  Ry.  v.  Payne,  49  Fed.  119 360 

Kansas  Pacific  Ey.  Co.  v.  Mower,  16  Kan.  573 367,  368 

Karahoo  v.  Adams,  1  Dill.  344 148 

Katie,  The,  40  Fed.  493 99 

Kauffman  v.  Oliver,  10  Pa.  St.  517 591 

Kaufman  v.  Stein,  138  Ind.  49 725 

Kaukauna  Water  Co.  v.  Green  Bay  etc.  Canal  Co.,  142  U.  S.  273 .  . 

652,653 

Kearney  v.  Case,  12  Wall.  275 672,  673 

Kearney  v.  Farmers'  etc.  Bank,  16  Pet.  94 189,  511 

Kearney  v.  Taylor,  15  How.  517 274,  434 

Keating  v.  Vaughn,  61  Tex.  518 420 

Keating  etc.  Machine  Co.  v.  The  Favorite  Carriage,  12  Tex.  Civ. 

App.  666 : 108 

Keeler,  In  re,  Hemp,  306 198,  460 

Keely   v.   Harrison,   20   Johns.   Cas.    29 60S 

Keely  v.  Sanders,  99  U.  S.  446 462,  502 

Keen  v.  Mould,  18  Ohio,  12 160 

Keim  v.  United  States,  177  U.  S.  293 460,  494,  501 

Keith  v.  Clark,  97  U.  S.  461 240,  241,  244,  270,  2S1,  356,  357,  685 

Keith  v.  Estill,  9  Port.  669 285 

Keith  v.  Rockingham,  18  Blatchf.  246,  2  Fed.  834 669 

Keller  v.  Corpus  Christi,  50  Tex.  529 155,  701 

Keller  v.  State,  11  Md.  525 139 

Kelley  v.  Drury,  9  Allen,  29 167,  41 8 

Kellogg  v.  Howes,  81  Cal.  170 426 

Kellum  v.  State,  66  Ind.  577 333 

Kelly,   In   re,    71    Fed.    549 208,  536i 

Kelly  v.   Garrett,   67   Ala.   309 409 

Kelly  v.  Harrison,  20  Johns.  Cas.  29 570 

Kelly  v.  McCarthy,  3  Bradf.  7 266,  267,  286 

Kelly  v.  Owen,  7  Wall.  498 569,  701 

Kelly  v.  People,  115  111.  583 255 

Kelly  v.  Pittsburgh,  104  IT.  S.  80 645,  715 

Kelly  v.  Pittsburgh,  85  Pa.  St.  182 78 

Kelsey  v.  King,  33  How.  Pr.  39 314 

Kemmler,  In  re,  136  U.  S.  448 699,  703.  708,  710 

Kemp,  In  re,  16  Wis.  359 224,  225,  468,  493,  631 

Kemp  v.  Kennedy,  5  Cr.  173,  Pet.  C.  C.  40 505,  506,  533 

Kemp    v.    Thorp,    3    Ala.    291 129 

Kemper  v.   Commonwealth,   8'5  Ky.   219 638 

Kemper    v.    Louisville,    14    Bush,    92 655 

Kendall  v.  State,  65  Ala.  492 632 

Kendall  v.   United   States,   12   Pet.   626 

205,  210,  460,  462,  463,  468,  490,  494,  500,  503,  506,  507 

Kennard  v.  Louisiana,  92  U.  S.  4S1 642,  644 


80-A  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Kennebec  Land  Co.  v.  Laboree,  2  Me.  293 401,  409 

Kennedy,  In  re,  2  Kich.   116 263,   281,  605 

Kennedy,  In  re,  2  S.  C.  221 41U,  412 

Kennedy   v.   Georgia   State  Bank,   8   How.    612 506 

Kennett   v.    Chambers,    14   How.    50 462,  !>02 

Kenny  v.  Hudspeth,   59   N.  J.   L.   322 287,  290 

Kentucky  v.   Denison,   24   How.    97 

489,   527,   545,   581,   582,   583,   585,   586,   683 

Kentucky   v.   Ohio,   24   How.   97 527 

Kentucky  Kailroad  Tax  Cases,  115  U.  S.  331 714 

Kenyon   v.    Stewart,    44   Pa.    St.    179 399 

Keokuk  etc.  Br.  Co.  v.  Illinois,  175  U.  S.  632 132 

Keokuk  etc.  K.  R.  Co.  v.  Missouri,  152  U.  S.  306 

300,    348,    351,    354,    364 

Keppel  v.  Petersburg  R.  E.,  Chase,  167 242 

Ker  v.   Illinois,   119   IT.   S.   441 587,  710 

Kerr,  In  re,  42  Barb.   119 342 

Ketchum  v.  Buckley,  99  U.  S.  190 473 

Key's  Case,  CI.  &  H.    221 42 

Keystone  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Adams,  151  U.  S.  145 186 

Kidd  v.  Alabama,  188  U.  S.   730 731 

Kidd  v.  Pearson,  128  U.  S.  17 100,  104,  110,  127,  679 

Kiernan   v.   Multnomah,   95   Fed.   849 697 

Kilbourn   v.   Thompson,   103   U.   S.   168 

54,   60,   62,   63,   68,   501,   503,   642 

Kilgore  v.  Magee,  85  Pa.  St.  401 290 

Kilpatrick  v.  Grand  Trunk  Ry.  Co.,  74  Vt.  288 442 

Kimball  v.   Greig,  47   Ala.   235 412 

Kimball   v.   Rosendale,   42   Wis.    407 393 

Kimball    v.    Taylor,    2    Woods,    37 473 

Kimberly   v.   Ely,   6   Pick.   440 417 

Kimbro  v.  Bank  of  Fulton,  49   Ga.   419 431,  437 

Kimnrel,   In   re,   41   Fed.   775 141 

Kimmish  v.  Ball,  129  U.  S.  22i2 125,  126 

Kincaid  v.  Francis,  3  Tenn.  49 574,  576 

King  v.  American  Transportation  Co.,  1  Flipp.  1 123,  124 

King  v.  Dedham  Bank,  15  Mass.  447 269 

King  v.  Gallun,  109  U.  S.   101 184 

King   v.   Greenway,   71   N.  Y.   413 115 

King  v.  Hayes,  80  Me.  26 727 

King  v.  McLean  Asylum,  64  Fed.  336 507,  521 

King   v.   Mullins,    171   U.   S.   429 715 

King  v.  Panther  Lumber  Co.,  171  U.   S.  438 715 

King   v.   Portland,   184   U.   S.   70 714 

King  v.  United  States,  59  Fed.   12 654 

King  Bridge  Co.  v.  Otoe  County,  120  U.  S.  226 505 

King   v.   Wilson,   1   Dill.   558 627 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  80j 

Kingman   v.   Paulson,    126    Ind.    509 564 

Kingsbury 's  Case,  106  Mass.  223 583 

Kingsley  v.   Cousins,  47  Me.   91 409 

Kinne,  Ex  parte,  3   Hughes,  1 155,  266,  286,   702,  704 

Kinney  v.  Sherman,  28  111.  520 268,  426 

Kirby.  v.  Pennsylvania  etc.  E.  R.  Co.,  76  Pa.  St.  '506 439 

Kirby   v.   United   States,   174   U.   S.   55 666 

Kirkman  v.  Bird,  22  Utah,  100 399,  410 

Kirkwood  v.  Hoxie,  95  Mich.   62 427 

Kirtland  v.  Hotchkiss,  100  U.  S.  498 81 

Kirtland  v.   Molton,   41   Ala.   548 435 

Kissell  v.  St.  Louis  Public  Schools,  IS  How.  24 597 

Kitchen  v.  Strawbridge,  4  Wash.  C.  C.  84 523 

Klauber  v.  Biggerstaff,  47  Wis.  559 250 

Klaus   v.    City,    34   Wis.    628 403 

Klein,  In  re,  1  How.  277,  note 159,  160,  161,  263 

Klein's   Case,  7   Ct.  of  CI.   240 477,  508 

Kleinschnridt    v.    Dunphy,    1    Mont.    118 668 

Klinger  v.  Missouri,  13  Wall.  257 226,  251 

Klinger   v.   Bickel,   117   Pa.    St.   326 .' 725 

Knapp  v.  McCaffrey,  177  U.  S.  647 541 

Knapp   v.    Thomas,    39    Ohio    St.    381 480 

Knappen  v.  Supervisors,  46  Mich.  24 299 

Kneedler  v.  Lane,  45  Pa.  St.  238 77,  195,  196,  197,  198,  201,  224 

Knight    v.    Dorr,    36    Mass.    48 403 

Knight  v.  United  States  Land  Assn.,  142  U.  S.  183 595 

Knote  v.  United  States,  95  U.S.  149 236,  237,  476,  479 

Knott  v.  Jefferson   etc.   Ferry,   9   Or.   535 360 

Knoop  v.  Piqua  Branch  Bank,  1  Ohio    St.  616 290 

Knower    v.    Haines,    31    Fed.    513 421 

Knowles,  Ex  parte,   5   Cal.   300 153,   154,   155,   156,  497 

Knowles   v.    Gaslight    Co.,    19   Wall.    61 562 

Knowlton  v.  Doherty,  87  Me.  518 127 

Knowlton  v.  Moore,  178  U.  S.   83 86,  87,  88,  232 

Knox  v.   Exchange  Bank,   12   Wall.   284 356,  420 

Knox  County  Commissioners  v.  Aspinwall,  24  How.  376 461 

Koehler,   Ex   parte,    23    Fed.    529 366 

Koehler  v.   Iowa,  60   Iowa,   656 611 

Koenig  v.  Omaha  etc.  By.,  3  Neb.  373 264,  283,  293 

Koenigsberger  v.  Richmond  Silver  Min.  Co.,  158  U.  S.  49 219 

Kohl  v.  Lehlbach,  160  U.  S.  297 711 

Kohl  v.  United  States,  91  U.  S.  373 37,  219,  609,  651,  652,  658,  660 

Kohler,  Ex   parte,   74   Cal.   38 722 

Kohn   v.    Melcher,   29    Fed.    433 139 

Kollock,  In  re,  165  U.  S.  537 79,  463 

Korn  v.  Mutual  Assur.  Soc,  6  Cr.  199 207 

Koshkonong  v.  Burton,  104  U.  S.  679 405,  406 


806  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Kreitz   v.   Behrensmeyer,   125   111.    197 569,  701 

Kresser  v.   Lyman,  74   Fed.   767 298,   342,   344,  441 

Kring  v.  Missouri,  107  U.  S.  221 228,  256,  397 

Kuback,  Ex  parte,  85  Cal.  274 713 

Kulp   v.   Kicketts,    3   Grant,   420 224,   514,    520 

Kumler   v.   Fraber,   5   Ohio   St.   442 302 

Kunkle   v.   Franklin,    13    Minn.    127 329,393 

Kunzler  v.  Kohaus,  5  Hill,  317 27,  160,  161,  263 

Kurtz  v.   Moffitt,   115   U.   S.   503 223,   469,  470 

Kurtz  v.  State,   22  Fla.  43 588 

Kusenberg  v.  Browne,  42  Pa.  St.  182 454 

Kynoche  v.  The  S.  C.  Ives,  Newb.    205 534 

La  Abra  Mining 'Co.  v.  United  States,  175  U.  S.  454 73,  484,  522 

Lacassagne  v.  Chapins,  144  U.  S.  126 533 

La  Croix  v.  County  Corrrmrs.,  50  Conn.  329 298,  343,  344 

Lacy  v.  Palmer,  93  Va.  159 122,  126 

Ladd,  In  re,   74  Fed.   31 208 

Ladd   v.   Portland,   32   Or.    271 276 

Lafayette  Co.  v.  Neely,  21  Fed.  739 383 

Lafayette  Insurance  Co.  v.  French,  18  How.  407 143,  566,  577 

Laflin  v.  Chicago  etc.  Ky.  Co.,  33  Fed.  420 661 

Lain   v.    Shepardson,    18    Wis.   59 280,436 

Laing  v.  Rigney,  160  U.  S.  539 566 

Lake  v.  Virginia  etc.  R.  R.,  7  Nev.  299 361 

Lake  County  v.  Rollins,  130  U.   S.   670 27,   28,   29,   500 

Lake  Erie  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Heath,  9  Ind.  559 628 

Lake  Roland  etc.  Ry.  v.  Baltimore,  77  Md.   381 318,  343 

Lake  Shore  etc.  R.  R.  v.  Cincinnati  etc.  R.  R.,  30  Ohio  St.  604 

344,  368,  442 

Lake  Shore  etc.  Ry.  v.  Ohio,  173  U.  S.  301 120,  367 

Lake  Shore  Ry.  Co.  v.  Smith,  173  U.  S.  696 

383,   572,   577,    708,    719,   720 

Lakevipw  v.  Rose  Hill  Cemetery,  70  111.  131 308,  344,  369,  440,  442 

Lalor   v.   Wattles,   3   Gilm.   225 160 

Lamar  v.  Browne,  92  U.  S.  187 196 

Lamar  v.  Micou,  112  TJ.   S.   476 242 

Lamb  v.  Bowser,  7  Biss.  315 287 

Lambert,  In  re,  134  Cal.  626 712 

Lanrkin   v.  Sterling,   1   Idaho,   92 306 

Lancaster   Sav.   Inst.   v.   Reigart,   2    Clarke,   23S 425 

Land   v.   Pierce,    25   Me.   233 160,  161 

Landa  v.  Hoick,  129  Mo.  663 121 

Landon  v.  Litchfield,  11  Conn.   251 301,  302,  396 

Lane,  In  re,  135  U.   S.   449 630 

Lane    v.    Anderson,    67    Fed.    566 461,    501 

Lane  v.   Nelson,   79  Pa.   St.   407 265,   266,   274 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  b07 

Lane  County  v.  Oregon,  7  Wall.  76 36,  37,  80,  82,  91,  132,  233,  678 

Lanf ear  v.  Henley,  4  Wall.  209 533 

Landon   v.  Sherwood,  124  U.  S.   85 597 

Lange,    Ex    parte,    18    Wall.    170 635 

Lanman's  Case,  CI.  &  H.  871,  Taft,  5 51,  52,  59 

Lansing  v.  County,  1  Dill.  522,  2  Abb.  U.  S.  53 317 

Lansing    v.    Smith,    4    Wend.    9 295 

Lanz    v.    Randall,    4    Dill.    425 155 

Lapeyre  v.  United  States,    17   Wall.   198 73 

Lapsley  v.  Brashears,  4  Litt.   47 

287,  384,  387,  397,  400,  416,  433,  683 

Larrabee    v.    Baldwin,    35    Cal.    156 285 

Larrabee  v.  Talbot,  5  Gilm.   426 162,   168,   287 

Lascelles  v.  Georgia,  148  U.  S.  542 581,  582,  588 

Lascelles  v.  State,  90  Ga.  366 581 

Lasere  v.  Eochereau,  17   Wall.  43S 645 

Late  Corporation  etc.  v.  United  States,  130  U.  S.  1.  .3S2,  598,  599,600 

Lathers  v.  Blessing,  105  U.  S.  630 539 

Lathrop  v.  Brown,   1  Woods,  474 431,  437 

Lathrop  v.  Stedman,  42  Conn.  583 380 

Laube    v.    Commonwealth,    85    Va.    530 305,  306 

Laughlin   v.   Commonwealth,   13   Bush,   261 259 

Laura,  The,  144  U.  S.  414 30,  477 

Lavender   v.   Gosnell,   43   Md.   153 162 

Lavin  v.  Emigrant  etc.  Bank,  18  Blatchf.  1,  1  Fed.  64 646 

Law,    Ex    parte,    35    Ga.    302 226,251 

Lawler   v.   Walker,   14   How.   149 522 

Lawrence,  In  re,  5  N.  Y.  Supp.  310 289 

Lawrence  v.  Hodges,  92  N.  C.   677 106 

Lawrence  v.  Louisville,   96  Ky.  595 408 

Lawrence   v.   Miller,    1    Sand.    516 267 

Lawton  v.  Steele,  152  U.  S.  136 128,  440,  552,  706,  723,  733 

Layton  v.  New  Orleans,  12  La.  Ann.  515 310 

Leach  v.   Smith,   25  Ark.   246 437 

Leadville   Coal  Co.   v.   McCreery,   141  U.   S.   477 507 

League  v.  De  Young,   11   How.   203 269,   294,  402,  430.  434 

League   v.   Texas,   184  U.   S.    161 275 

Leak   v.    Commissioners,    64    N.    C.    132 243 

Lear   v.    United    States,    50    Fed.    65 210 

Leary,  In   re,   10  Ben.   208 583 

Leathers  v.  Shipbuilders'  Bank,  40  Me.   3S6 337,  403 

Leavell  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  116  N.  C.  211 145 

Leavenworth   v.  Miller,   7   Kan.   506 309 

Leavitt  v.  Lovering,  64  N.  H.   609 284 

Leavitt  v.  Railway  Co.,  90  Me.  164 428 

Lee   v.  Davis,   1   A.  K.  Marsh.   397 390 

Lee  v.  Sogers,  7  Wall.   181 320 


808  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Lee    v.    Tillotson,    24   Wend.    337 668 

Lee  Lung  v.  Patterson,  186  U.  S.  175 648 

Leep  v.  St.  Louis  etc.  Ky.  Co.,  58  Ark.  407 376,  378,  713 

Leeper  v.  Texas,  139  U.  S.  468 642 

Lees  v.  United  States,  150  U.  S.  480 108,  640 

Lee 's  Bank,  In  re,  21  N,  Y.  9 270,  379 

Lee  Sing  Far  v.  United   States,  94  Fed.   836 iOO 

Legal  Tender  Cases,  12  Wall.  534 30,  37,  77,  78,  89, 

90,    91,    171,    172,    173,    195,    212,    215,    262,    607,    ii09,    611,    649. 

Le  Grand  v.  United  States,  12  Fed.  581 697,  738,  739,  740 

Lehew  v.  Brummell,  103  Mo.  546 704,   731 

Lehigh  Min.  &  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Kelly,  160  U.  S.  336 505,  531 

Lehigh  Min.  &  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Kelly,  64  Fed.  401 531 

Lehigh  Valley  R.  R.  v.  Kearney,  158  U.  S.  476 186 

Lehigh  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  146  U.  S.  200 99,  131 

Lehigh  Water     Co.  v.  Easton,  121  U.  S.  391 268,  395 

Lehman   v.   Moore,    93    Ala.    189 422 

Leisy  v.  Hardin,  135  U.  S.  100 95,  98,  111,  127,  445 

Leitensdorfer  v.   Webb,  20   How.   177 473,   474,  509,   514,  599 

Leland  v.  Wilkinson,  10  Pet.  294 392 

Leloup  v.  Mobile,  127  U.  S.  645 105,  107,  135,  144 

Lemmon  v.  People,  5  Sand.  681,  20  N.  Y.  562.  ..108,  119,  575,  591,  682 

Lem  Moon  Sing  v.  United  States,  158  U.  S.  549 108,  484 

L'Engle  v.  Gates,  74  Fed.  514 565 

Lennon,  In  re,  150  U.  S.   400 549 

Lent   v.   Tillson,   140   U.   S.   327 650,   714 

Leon,  Ex  parte,  1  Edm.  Sel.  Cas.  301 520 

Leon  v.  Galceron,   11  Wall.  188 537,  539,  541 

Leroy  v.  East  S.  C.  R.  R.,  18  Mich.  233 353 

Le  Roy  v.  Tatham,  14  How.  177 184 

Lessley  v.  Phipps,  49  Miss.  799 3S9,  397,  410,  412 

Leszynsky,  In  re,  16  Blatchf .  9 226,  635 

Letcher  v.  Moore,  CI.  &  H.  715 60 

Levering  v.  Washington,  3  Minn.   323 396 

Levins  v.   Sleater,  2   G.  Greene,   608 266 

Levy 's   Case,   1   Bart.   41 42 

Levy  v.  Hitscher,  40  La.  Ann.  508 272 

Levy  v.  Stewart,  11  Wall.  253 194 

Lewis,  In  re,  114  Fed.  963 694 

Lewis  v.  Brackenridge,  1  Blackf.  220 388,  416 

Lewis  v.  Cocks,  23  How.  469 473,  509 

Lewis  v.  Elmendorf ,  2  Johns.  Cas.  222 67 

Lewis  v.  Harbin,  5  B.  Mon.  567 406 

Lewis  v.  Lewis,  7  How.  784 391 

Lewis   v.   Lewis,   47   Pa.   St.   127 414 

Lewis  v.  McElvain,   16   OhR   347 394 

Lewis  v.  Shreveport,  108  U.  S.  287 329,  340 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  809 

Lewis  v.  United  States,  146  U.  S.  372 667 

Lewison  v.  Krohne,  30   Tex.   714 413 

Lexington  v.  Aull,  30  Mo.  480 348 

L'Hote  v.  New  Orleans,  177  U.  S.  597 440,  680,  724 

Liberman  v.   State,  26   Neb.  464 732 

License    Cases,   5   How.    594 

81,  84,  118,  444,  445,  447,  448,  483,  484,  614,  718 

License  Tax  Cases,  5  Wall.  416 86,  87,  88,  139,  232 

Lick  v.  Faulkner,  25  Cal.  404 90,  213,  218 

Liedersdorf   v.  Flint,   8   Biss.   327 178 

Lightburne  v.  Taxing  Dist.,  4  Lea,  219 145 

Lincoln   v.   Grant,   38   Neb.   369 327 

Lincoln  etc.  Min.  Co.  v.  District  Court,  7  N.  Mex.  502 600 

Lincoln  Bank  v.  Bichardson,  1  Me.  79 336 

Lincoln  Co.  v.  Luning,  133  U.  S.  898 507,  689 

Lindzey  v.  Burbridge,  11  Mo.  545 416 

Lindzey  v.  State,  65  Miss.  545 228,  254 

Linehan  etc.  Co.  v.  Pendergass,  70  Fed.  2 131,  137 

Linford   v.   Ellison,   155   U.    S.   506 601 

Linn  v.  State  Bank,  Scam.   90 245 

Lin  Sing  v.  Washburn,  20  Cal.  534 106,  108,  116 

Linthicum  v.  Fenley,  11  Bush,  131 164 

L 'Invincible,  1  Wheat.  2o7 540 

Lionberger  v.  Rouse,  9  Wall.  477 93 

Li  Sing  v.  United  States,  180  U.  S.  495 214,  503,  524 

List  v.  Commonwealth,  118  Pa.  St,  327 109,  577 

List   v.   Wheeling,    7   W.   Va.   501 320 

Litchfield  v.  Vernon,  41  N.  Y.  123 401 

Little  v.  Barreme,  2  Cr.  170 470 

Little  v.  Gould,  2  Blatchf .  364 182,  183 

Little  Falls  etc.  Co.  v.  Little  Falls',  102  Fed.  663 324 

Little  Miami  etc.  R.  E.  Co.  v.  United  States,  108  U.  S.  277 87 

Little  Rock  v.  Prather,  49  Ark.  477 138 

Little  Rock  etc.  Ey.  v.  Hanniford,  49  Ark.   291 120 

Little  Eock  etc.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Payne,  33  Ark.  816 720 

Little  Eock  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Woodruff,  49  Ark.  381 651 

Live  Stock  etc.  Assn.  v.  Crescent  City  etc.  Co.,  1  Abb.   U.  S.    397 

573,   702,   703,   704,  705 

Liverpool  etc.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Massachusetts,  10  Wall.  573 

109,   132,   145,   572   577,  707 

Livingston  v.  Darlington,  101  U.  S.  410 503,  524,  611 

Livington  v.  Hannibal  etc.  E.  E.,  60  Mo.  516 348 

Livingston  v.   Hollenbeck,  4  Barb.   9 278 

Livingston  v.  Jefferson,  1  Brock.  203 505 

Livingston  v.  Livingston,   73  N.   Y.   377 285 

Livingston  v.  Mayor,  8  Wend.  85 607,  668 

Livingston  v.  Moore,  7  Pet.   546 

268,  308,  427,  433,  607,  668,  676 


810  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Livingston   v.   Story,   9  Pet.   655 598 

Li1  Lngston  v.   Van   Ingen,  9  Johns.  507 178,  183 

Lizzie   E.,   The,   30   Fed.   878 455 

Lloyd  v.  Silver  Bow  County,  11  Mont.  411 290 

Loan  Association  v.  Topeka,  20  Wall.  663 82,  501,  610 

Lobdell  v.  Hull,  3  Nov.  .107 148 

Lobrano    v.    Milligan,    9    Wall.    295 433 

Locke  v.  New  Orleans,  4  Wall.  173 229,  257,  270,  277 

Lockhart  v.  Usry,  2S   Ga.   345 399,  402 

Lockwoofl,  In  re,  154  U.  S.  117 567,  700,  706,  738 

Loekwood   v.  Bartlett,  130  N.  Y.  340 125 

Loesch  v.  Koehler,   144  Ind.   278 727 

Logan  v.  State,  5  Tex.  App.  303 442 

Logan  v.  United  States,  144  U.  S.  283 214,  218,  553,  634,  705 

Logansport  v.  Seybold,  59  Ind.  225 138 

Logwood  v.  Planters'  Bank,  1  Minor,  23 270,  231 

Lonas   v.    State,   3    Heisk.    287 704 

Londonderry  v.   Deny,   8   N.   H.   320 312 

Lone  Jack  Min.  Co.  v.  Megginson,  82  Fed.  94 156 

Loney,   In   re,   134   U.    S.   375 61 

Long's   Appeal,   87   Pa.    St.   119 434 

Longis  v.   Creditors,   20   La.   Ann.   15 162 

Long  Island  Water  Supply  Co.  v.  Brooklyn,  166  U.  S.  69 

264,  341,  342,  653,  657,  658 

Looker  v.  Maynard,  179  U.  S.  54 375,  381 

Look  Tin   Sing,  In  re,  21  Fed.  905 700 

Lord   v.   Chadbourne,   42   Me.   429 399 

Lord  v.  Litchfield,  36  Conn.  116. 301,  303,  355 

Lord  v.  Steamship  Co.,  102  U.  S.  541 95,  97,  99,  101,  111 

Lord  v.  Thomas,  64  N.  Y.  167 307 

Lorman  v.  Clarke,  2  McLean,  468 523 

Los  Angeles  v.  Los  Angeles  City  Water  Co.,  177  U.  S.  583 

272,    324,    325,    337 

Los  Angeles  v.  Los  Angeles  etc.  Co.,  61  Cal.  65 318 

Los  Angeles  County  v.  Hollywood  etc.  Assn.,  124  Cal.  344..  717,  726 

Los  Angeles  Water  Co.  v.  Los  Angeles,  88  Fed.  743 329 

Lott  v.  Cox,  43  Ala.  697 452,  453 

Lott  v.  Mobile  Trade  Co.,  42  Ala.  578 452,  453 

Lott  v.   Morgan,  41   Ala.   246 452 

Lottawanna,  The,  21  Wall.  577 106,  510,  534,  536,  540 

Lotus,  No.  2,  The,  26  Fed.  6-10 131 

Loughborough  v.  Blake,  5  Wheat.  324 44,  80,  205,  211,  231 

Louisa   Simpson,  2   Saw.   57 462 

Louisiana  Cases,  Taf t,  426 50 

Louisiana  v.    Chandler,   5   La.   Ann.    589 622 

Louisiana  v.  Jumel,  107  U.  S.  711 303,  304 

Louisiana  v.  Jumel,  13  La.   Ann.  399 622 

Louisiana  v.  Mayor,  109  U.  S.  287 285,  315,  404 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  811 

Louisiana  v.  New  Orleans,  102  IT.  S.  203 326,  384,  427 

Louisiana  v.  New  Orleans,  32  La.  Ann.  493 269,  285,  400 

Louisiana  v.  Pilsbury,  105  U.  S.  294 264,  272,  317,  328,  399 

Louisiana  v.  Police  Jury,  111  U.  S.  "21 2S5,  32S,  384 

Louisiana  v.   Steele,  134-  U.   S.   232 545 

Louisiana  v.  Taylor,  105  U.  S.  458 324 

Louisiana  v.  Texas,  176  IT.  S.  16 543,  546 

Louisville  v.  University,  15  B.  Mon.  669 330,  336 

Louisville  Gas  Co.  v.  Citizens'  Gas  Co.,  115  U.  S.  698 378 

Louisville  etc.  By.  Co.  v.  Baldwin,  85  Ala.  619 121,  720 

Louisville    C.  L.  R.  Co.  v.  Commonwealth,  73  Ky.  43 352 

Louisville  etc.  B,  B.  v.  Davidson,  1  Sneed,  637 320 

Louisville  etc.  B.  B.  v.  Eubank,  184  U.  S.  36 105,  115 

Louisville  etc.  B.  B.  Co.  v.  Kentucky,  161  U.  S.  685 117,  121,  373 

Louisville  etc.  E.  B.  v.  Kentucky,  183  U.  S.  512.  .30,  115,  340,  374,  731 
Louisville  etc  E.  B.  Co.  v.  Letsom,  2  How.  555.... ,530,  687,  688,  689 

Louisville  etc.  By.  Co.  v.  Mississippi,  138  U.   S.  590 117 

Louisville  etc.  By.  Co.  v,  Mississippi,  66  Miss.  662 117 

Louisville  etc.  B.  B.  Co.  v.  Bailroad  Commission,  19  Fed.  707....     96 

Louisville  etc.  B.  B.  Co.  v.  Schmidt,  177  U.  S.  239 645 

Louisville  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Williams,  41  S.  W.  287 406 

Louisville  T.  Co.  v.  Lounsbury,  2  Met.  (Ky.)  165 346 

Louisville  Trust  Co.  v.  Cincinnati,  73  Fed.  726 333 

Louisville  Underwriters,  The,  134  U.  S.  493 534 

Louisville  Water  Co.  v.  Clark,  143  U.  S.  12 353,  379 

Lovell  v.  Seeback,  45  Minn.  465 724 

Loving  v.  Auditor,  76  Va.  947 290 

Low  v.  Austin,  13  Wall.  33 84,  145,  445,  448 

Low  v.  Commissioners,  E.  M.  Charlt.  302 552,  671 

Low  v.  Bees  Printing  Co.,  41  Neb.  127 712,  713 

Lowden  v..  Moses,  3  McCord,  102 398,  402 

Lowe 's  Case,  1  Bart.   448 45 

Lowe  v.  Kansas,  163  U.  S.  88 644,  729 

Lowe  v.  State,  86   Ala.   53 666 

Lowenberg   v.   Levine,   93    Cal.    220 419 

Loweree  v.  Newark,  9  Vroom,   151 317 

Lowrey  v.  Weaver,  4  McLean,  32 210 

Lowrie,  Ex  parte,  4  Utah,  177 665 

Lowry  v.  Francis,  2  Yerg.  534 283 

Lowry  v.   McGhee,   8    Yerg.    242 249 

Lowry  v.  Eainwater,  70  Mo.  152 727 

Lowry  v.  White,  Mobley,  623 42 

Lucas  v.   Copeland,   2   Stew.    15.°, 561 

Lucas  v.  Sawyer,   17  Iowa,   517 267 

Luce  v.  Fensler,  85  Iowa,  601 .. : 309 

Ludwigson,  In  re,  3  Woods,  13 646 

Lumb  v.  Pinekney,   21   S.   Ct.   471 395 

Luter  v.  Hunter,  30  Tex.  688 414,  416 


812  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Luther  v.  Borden,  7  How.  43 201,   202,  204,   223, 

225,   458,   462,   471,   472,   475,   500,   502,   521,   603,    604,    624,    677 

Luther  v.  Saylor,  8  Mo.  App.  424 421 

Luxton  v.  North  Kiver  Bridge  Co.,  153  U.  S.  529 

107,  176,  215,  219,  658 

Lybarger  v.  State,  2  Wash.  557 261,  628 

Lycoming  Co.  v.  Union  Co.,  15  Pa.  St.  166 429 

Lyman  v.  B.  etc.  E.  K.  Co.,  58  Mass.  2-S8 369 

Lynch  v.  Clarke,  1  Sand.  Ch.  583 153,  154 

Lynch  v.  Forbers,  161  Mass.  309 651 

Lynch  v.  Lafland,  4  Cold.   96 310 

Lynde  v.  Columbus  etc.  Ey.,  57  Fed.  996 561 

Lyng  v.  Michigan,  135  U.  S.  166 127,  130 

Lynn  v.  State,  84  Md.  78 229,  256 

Lynn  v.   State,  33  Tex.   Cr.  153 727 

Lyons  v.  Cunningham,  66  Cal.  42 569 

M.  &  E.  E.  E.  v.  Commissioners,  37  N.  J.  L.  228 371 

McAffee  v.  Covington,  71  Ga.  272 273,  285,  411 

McAllister  v.  United  States,  141  U.  S.  174 508,  509,  516,  599,  600 

McBride  v.  Stradley,  103  Ind.  465 669 

McCabe  v.  Goodwin,  106  Cal.  486 294 

McCalPs  Case,  15  Fed.  Cas.  1226 203 

McCall  v.  California,  136  U.  S.  109 117,  131,  143 

McCall  v.  McDowell,  Deady,  233 77,  224,  463,  471 

MeCallie  v.  Chattanooga,  3  Head,  317 311 

McCann  v.  Eddy,  133  Mo.  59 121 

McCann  v.  New  York  Central  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  50  N.  Y.  176 285 

McCardle,  Ex  parte,  7  Wall.  514 502,  518,  519,  524,  547,  549,  550 

McCarthy  v.  Froelke,  63  Ind.  511 155 

McCarthy  v.  Marsh,  5  N.  Y.  263 156 

McCarty  v.  Gibson,  5  Gratt.  307 169,  170 

McCauley  v.  Brooks,  16  Cal.  11 288,  303,  304,  306 

McClaughry  v.  Deming,  186  U.  S.  69 200,  202,  549 

McCless  v.  Meekins,  117  N.  C.  40 317 

McClos-key   v.   Kreling,   76   Cal.   511 725 

McClung  v.  Silliman,  6  Wheat.  604 187,  496,  504,  505 

McClurg  v.  Kingsland,  1  How.  206 179,  183 

McClusky,  Ex  parte,  40  Fed.   74 629 

McConnell  v.  Wilcox,  2  111.  344 209,  597 

MeCoppin  v.  McCartney,  60  Cal.  367 277 

McCormiek  v.  Alexander,  2  Ohio,   285 26S,  286,   427 

McCormick  v.  Fayette  County,  150  Pa.  St.  193 290 

McCormick  v.  Humphrey,  27  Ind.  144 514 

McCormick  v.  Pickering,  4  N.  Y.  276 160,  229 

McCormick  v.  Eusch,  15  Iowa,  136 398,  402,  416 

McCormick  v.  Sullivant,  10  Wheat.   199 506 

McCoy  v.  Washington  County,  3  Wall.    Jr.    381 246,  328 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  813 

McCracken  v.  Hay-ward,  2  How.   612 

265,  385,  386,  387,  389,  397,  406,  413,  415,  424,  425 

McCracken  v.  Moody,  33  Ark.  81 276,  327 

McCracken  v.  Poole,  19  La.  Ann.  359 242 

MeCreary  v.  State,  27  Ark.  425 434 

McCulloch  v.  Brown,  41  S.  C.  243 611 

McCulloch  v.  Maryland,  4  Wheat.  406.. 28,  30,  31,  35.  36,  37.  67, 

76,  81,  82,  84,  85,  91,  93,  212,  213,  215,  217,  218,  609.  615,  678,  680 

McDonald   v.   Maddux,    11    Cal.    187 314 

McDonald  v.   Massachusetts,  180  U.   S.   313 255,  638,  675 

McDonald  v.  State,  81  Ala,  279 121 

McDonald  v.  State,  79  Wis?.  651 632,  634 

McDonnell  v.  Alabama  etc.  Ins.   Co,  85  Ala.  407 345 

McDonough   v.    Millandon,    3    How.    693 533 

McEldcrry  v.  Jones,  67  Ala.  205 91 

McElmoyle  v.  Cohen,  13  Pet.  312 409,  561,  562,  5o4    565,  567,  568 

McElrath  's  Motion,  12  Ct.   of  CI.   312 671 

McElrath  v.  Pittsburgh  etc.  Ey.  Co.,  55  Pa.  St.  189 433 

McElrath  v.  United  States,  102  U.  S.  426 486,  671 

McElvain  v.  Mudd,  44  Ala.  48 3S8,  523,  590,  693 

McElvaine  v.  Brush,  142  U.  S.  158 607,  675 

McFaddin  v.  Evans-Snider-Buel  Co.,  185  U.  S.  513 263,  274,  392 

McFall  v.  Austin,  1  Tex.  App.  Civ.  207 290 

McFarland  v.  Butler,  8  Minn.  110 574 

McFarlaud  v.  Culpepper,  CI.  &  H.  221 615 

McFarland  v.  State  Bank,  4  Ark.  44 245 

McGahey  v.  Commonwealth,  85  Va.  519 305,  306 

McGahey  v.  Virginia,  135  TJ.  S.  693 305,  306,  387.  389,  406,  407 

McGavisk  v.  State,  34  N.  J.  509 353 

McGee  v.  Mathis,  4  Wall.  155 283,  289,  302,  349 

McGee  v.  Young,   40  Miss.   164 267 

McGinnis  v.  Anderson,  Powell,  638 615 

McGoon  v.  Shirk,  54  HI.  411 91 

McGregor  v.  Cone,  104  Iowa,  469 46.  123,  127,  445 

McGrew  v.  Watrous,  16  Tex.  509 563 

McGuire  v.  Commonwealth,  3  Wall.  395 139,  441 

McGuire  v.   State,  47  Md.  485 255 

McHenry  v.  Alford,   168  U.   S.   670 453,  601 

McHenry  v.  Downer,  116  Cal.   25 94 

Mcllvaine  v.  Cox's  Lessee,  2  Cr.  280,  4  Cr.  212 677 

Mclntyre  v.  Ingraham,  35  Miss.  25 356 

Mclntyre  v.   Wood,   7   Cr.   506 503,  506 

McKane   v.   Durston,   153   TJ.   S.   687 573,  576 

McKay  v.   Campbell,   2   Saw.   129 149,   571,   731 

Mackel   v.   Eochester,   102  Fed.    314 640 

Maekey  v.  Coxe,  18  How.  100 148   150,  152,  483 

Mackey  v.  O  'Connor,  2  Ells.  565 46 


814  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

MeKee   v.   Rains,    10    Wall.    25 672 

McKee  v.   Young,   2   Bart.   422 41,  60 

McKeever  v.  United  States,  14  Ct.  of  CI.  396 185 

McKeithan  v.  Terry,  64  N.   C.  25 411 

McKcnny  v.  Conipton,  18  Ga.  170 406 

McKim  v.  Willis,  83  Mass.  512 419 

Mackin   v.   United   States,   117   U.   S.   354 629 

McKinney  v.   Salem,    77   Ind.   214 298 

McKinney  v.  Saviego,  18  How.  240 570,  593 

McKnight  v.  United  States,  115  Fed.   972 640 

MeLane  v.  Paschal,  62  Tex.  102 412 

McLaren  v.  Pennington,  1  Paine,  102 370,  375,  382 

McLaughlin  v.   South  Bend,  126  Ind.  471 141 

McLean,  In  re,  2  Bank.  Keg.  170 270 

McLean  v.  Lafayette  Bank,  3  McLean,  415 161 

McLeod  v.   Burroughs,   9   Ga.   213 33 1 

MeLeod  v.  Receveur,  71  Fed.  455 714 

McLeod  v.  Savannah  etc.  E.  R.,  25  Ga.  457 361 

McLure  v.  Melton,  24  S.   C.  570 264,  404 

McMahan  v.  Mayor,  2  Har.  &  J.  41 319 

MeMasters  v.  Commonwealth,  3  Watts,  294 393 

McMichael  etc.  Co.  v.  Stafford,  105  Fed.  380 186 

McMicken  v.  Webb,  11  Pet.  38 528 

McMillan   v.   Boyles,   6   Iowa,   304 320 

McMillan   v.   Lee   County,   6  Iowa,   394 274,   393 

McMillan  v.  McNeill,  4  Wheat.   209 166,  167 

McMillan   v.   Sprague,  4  How.    (Miss.)     647 400,  432 

MeMillen  v.  Anderson,  95  U.  S.  41 714 

McMillen  v.  County  Judge,  6  Iowa,  394 274 

McMurray  v.   Sidwell,  155  Ind.   560 284 

McNaughton  Co.  v.  McGirl,  20   Mont.   134 99,   107,  130,  578 

McNealy  v.  Gregory,  13  Fla.  417 250,  270,  387 

McNeil,  Ex  parte,  13  Wall.  242 102,  104,  454,  538,  717 

McNulty,  Ex  parte,  77  Cal.  164 718 

McNulty  v.  Batty,   10   How.   78 548,   595 

McNulty  v.  California,  149  Cal.  64S 710 

McNutt  v.  Bland,  2  How.  16 510 

Macon  County  v.  Shores,  97  U.  S.  278 323 

Macon  etc.  B.  R.  Co.  v.  Gibson,  85  Ga.  1 375,  377 

McPherson,   In   re,   104  U.   S.   306 715 

McPherson  v.  Blacker,  146  U.  S.  3S 

30,  39,  464,  466,  677,  691.  701,  703,  705,  720,  739 

McPherson  v.  Secretary  of  State,  92  Mich.   390 703 

McQueen  v.  McQueen,  55  Ala.  433 281 

McRae  v.  Mayor,  59  Ga.  168 63S 

McReady  v.  Virginia,  94  U.  S.  394 130,  575,  706,  732 

Macready    v.    Wilcox,    33    Conn.    321 324 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  815 

McBee  v.  Wilmington  etc.  Co.,  2  Jones  (X.  C),  186 360 

McBeynolds  v.  Smallhouse,  8  Bush,  447 103 

McVeigh   v.   Bank,   26   Gratt,   200 195 

Madison  etc.  B.  E.  v.  Whiteneck,  8  Ind.  217..... 368 

Madland   v.   Benland,   24   Minn.   372 403 

Madrazo,    Ex   parte,    7   Pet.    627 545,  687 

Maenhaut   v.   New   Orleans,   2    Woods,    10S 326,327 

Magee   v.   Young,   40   Miss.    164 267 

Maggie   Hammond,  The,   9  Wall.  452 535 

Magill  v.  Parsons,  4  Conn.   325 506 

Magin  v.  Karle,   150   U.   S.   392 184 

Mag-ner  v.  People,  97   111.   320 128,  129 

Magoun  v.  Illinois  etc.  Bank,  170  U.  S.  299 93,  707,  729,  731 

Maguiar  v.   Henry,  84  Ky.   1 429 

Maguire  v.  Board,  71  Ala.  42 92 

Maguire  v.  Card,  21  How.  251 541 

Mahon  v.  Justice,  127  U.  S.  706.  .  .239,  240,  456,  553,  584,  586,  588,686 

Mahoney,  Estate  of,  133  Cal.  180 707 

Maier,  Ex  parte,  103  Cal.  476 ]  29,  722 

Mail  Co.  v.  Flanders,  12  Wall.  135 52S 

Main    v.   Messner,    17    Or.    79 167 

Maine  v.  Grand  Trunk  By.  Co.,  142  U.  S.  228 134 

Maine  Central  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Maine,  96  U.  S.  510 380 

Mallett  v.  North  Carolina,  181  U.  S.  597 262 

Malony  v.  Fortune,   14  Iowa,  417 422 

Malony  v.  Milwaukee,  1  Fed.  613 536 

Maltbie   v.   Hotchkiss,   38    Conn.    80 161 

Maltby  v.  Beading  etc.  E,  E.  Co.,  52  Pa.  St.  140 278 

Manchester,   Ex  parte,  5   Cal.   237 5S5,  586 

Manchester   v.   Massachusetts,   139   U.   S.   262 

128,  130,  188,  523.  536,  541 

Manchester  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Herriot,  91  Fed.   718 143 

Manley,  In  re,  20  Wash.  509 58) 

Manley  v.  Ealeigh,  4  Jones  Eq.  370 311 

Mann  v.  Mann,  1  Johns.   Ch.   326 99 

Mann  v.  Tacoma  Land  Co.,  152  U.  S.  984 595 

Manning,   In  re,   135  U.   S.   506 710 

Manning  v.  Amy,  140  IT.  S.  141 515 

Manro  v.   Almeida,   10   Wheat.   486 536 

Mansfield  etc.  By.  v.  Swan,  111  U.  S.  382 505 

Manuel  v.  Wulff,   152   IT.   S.   511 156 

Marbury  v.  Madison,  1   Cr.   138 

28,  29,  32,  459,  460,  461,  463,  4S7,  488,  493, 

494,  500,  501,  518,  522,  523,  524,  542  543.  547.  ."49,  611  612,  679 

Marchant  v.  Pennsylvania  B.  B.   Co.,  153  IT.  S.   3S8 708,  729 

Marden  v.  Portsmouth,  59  N.   H.   20 290 

Margaret,    The,    9   Wheat.    421 670 


816  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Marianna   Flora,   The,    11    Wheat.   40 190 

Marion  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Sleeth,  53  Ind.  41 379 

Marietta  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Elliott,  10  Ohio  St.  57 371,  372 

Marion  v.  State,  16   Neb.   354 228,   254,  261 

Market   St.   E.   E.   v.   Hellman,   109   Cal.   587 364 

Marks  v.   Donaldson,   24   La.   Ann.   242 313 

Marks   v.   Marks,    75.  Fed.    328 155,   570,  701 

Markson  v.  Haney,  1  Dill.  503 163 

Marsh  v.  Burroughs,  1  Woods,  463 270,  435,  436,  605 

Marsh  v.  Fulton  County,  10  Wall.  684 329 

Marsh  v.   Putnam,   69  Mass.   551 168,  417 

Marshall's   Case,   Taft,   68 60 

Marshall  v.  Baltimore  etc.  E.  E.,  16  How.  314 530 

Marshall  v.   Sherman,   148  N.  Y.   18 270,  271 

Marshalship  for  Alabama,  In  re,  20  Fed.   3S2 485,  486,  490 

Marshaltown  v.  Blum,  58  Iowa,  184 141 

Martha   Anne,   The,   Olcott,   22 130 

Martin,  In   re,  2  Paine,  348 504,   512,   590,  671 

Martin,  Ex   parte,   7   Nev.   140 44S 

Martin  v.  Baltimore  etc  E,  E,  Co.,  151  U.  S.  689 450,  451,  515 

Martin  v.  Berry,  37  Cal.  208 162,  163 

Martin  v.  Dix,  52  Miss.  58 311,  607,  628 

Martin   v.   Hous?,   39  Fed.   694 208 

Martin  v.  Hunter,  1  Wheat.  326 27,   30, 

31,    35,    37,    76,    77,    171,    213,    482,    497,   500,    503,    504,    509, 

510,  511,  514,  516,  517,  518,  519,  521,  535,  543,  547,  548,  609,  678 

Martin  v.  Mott,  12  Wheat.  19 201,  202,  223,  225,  471,  604,  644 

Martin  v.  Eosedale,   130  Ind.   109 141 

Martin  v.  Snowden,  18  Gratt.  100 227,  645 

Martin  v.   Somerville,  3  Wall.  Jr.   206 268,  428 

Martin  v.  State,  18  Tex.  App.  225 174,  262 

Martin  v.  Waddell,  16  Pet.  316 129,  130 

Martindale  v.  Moore,  3  Blackf .  280 332 

Martinnetti  v.  Maguire,  Deady,  216,  1  Abb.  356 182 

Marx  v.   Hanthorn,   30   Fed.   679 2S0 

Mary   and   Susan,   The,   1   Wheat.   57 72 

Mary  Clinton,  The,  Blatchf.   Pr.   558 470 

Marye  v.  Baltimore  etc.  E.  E.,  127  U.   S.   124 137,  6S4 

Maryland  v.  Baltimore  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  3  How.  552 310,  442 

Mason,  Ex  parte,   105  U.   S.   697 '..200,  549 

Mason  v.  Boom  Co.,  3  Wall.  Jr.   252 515 

Mason  v.  Haile,  12   Wheat.   370 398,  400,  402,  419 

Mason  v.  Harper's  Ferry  Bridge  Co.,  17  W.  Va.  42 361 

Mason  v.  Kennebec  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  31  Me.  215 647 

Mason  v.  McLeod,  57  Kan.  109 180,  186 

Mason  v.  State,  55  Ark.  535 466 

Mason  v.  Waite,  5  111.  134 399 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  817 

Mason  v.   Walker,   14  Me.   166 406 

Mason  etc.  Co.  v.  Main  Jellico  etc.   Co.,  87  Ky.  467 255,  308 

Massachusetts  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  141  U.  S.  640 136,  137 

Massachusetts  etc.  Co.  v.  Cane  Creek,  155  U.  S.  285 529 

Massachusetts  Gen.  Hosp.  v.  State  etc.  Ins.  Co.,  70  Mass.  227..   380 

Massey  v.  Wise,  Mobley,  367 70 

Master  v.  Prats,  10   Bob.   (La.)   459 455 

Matheny  v.  Golden,  5  Ohio  St.  361 270,  289,  302,  353 

Mathfer   v.   Bush,    16    Johns.    233 162 

Mather  v.   Chapman,   6   Cow.   57 392,   404,   437 

Mather  v.  Nesbit,  4  McCrary,  506,  13  Fed.  873 162,  167,  417 

Mathews  v.  St.  Louis  etc.  Ky.,  121  Mo.  298 332,  346,  369 

Matthew  v.  Eae,  3  Cr.  C.  C.  699 154 

Matthews  v.  McStea,  91  U.  S.   12 194,   196,   470 

Matthews  v.  People,  202  111.  389 713 

Matthews    v.    Zane,    7    Wheat.    211 73 

Mattingly  v.  District  of  Columbia.  97  U.  S.  690 205,  275 

Mattox  v.  United  States,  156  U.  b.  242 29,  666 

Mauran  v.  Alliance  Ins.  Co.,  6  Wall.  13 241,  685 

Maxey  v.  Loyal,  38  Ga.  538 412 

Maxwell  v.  Dow,  176  U.  S.  601 30,  551,  574,  665,  706,  707 

Maxwell  v.  Stewart,  21  Wall.  73,  22  Wall.  79 674 

May,  In  re,  82  Fed.  425 140 

May  v.  New  Orleans,  178  U.  S.  507 Ill,  145,  146,  445 

May  v.  Sloan,  101  U.  S.  237 95 

Mayberry  v.  Brien,  15  Pet.  37 267 

Mayer  v.  Hellman,  91  U.  S.  502 164 

Mayer  v.  Knight,  27  Tex.  719 263 

Mayfield  v.  Bichards,  115  U.  S.  142 196 

Mayhew   v.   Thatcher,   6   Wheat.    129 561 

Maynard  v.  Hill,  125  U.  S.  214 265,  286 

Maynard  v.  Newman,  1  Nev.  271 90,  171,  218,  249 

Maynes  v.  Moore,  16  Ind.  116 433 

Mayor  v.   Cooper,   6  Wall.   251 504 

Mayor  v.  Baltimore  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  6  Gall.  288 349,  353,  354 

Mayor  v.   Cooper,   6   Wall.   252 514,   518,   519 

Mayor   v.   N.    &  W.   E.   E.    Co.,   109   Mass.   103 371,   375,   381 

Mayor  v.  Pittsburgh  etc.  E.  E,  Co.,  1  Abb.   (U.  S.)   9 382 

Mayor   v.  Proprietors,   7   Md.   517 350 

Mayor  v.  Eailroad  Co.,  113  N.  Y.  318 353 

Mayor  v.  Second  Ave.  etc.  Co.,  34  Barb.  41 319 

Mayor  v.   State,   15   Md.   376 246,   310 

Mayor  v.  Twenty-third  St.  Ey.,  113.  N.  T.  318 374 

Mayor  of  Macon  v.  Jones,  67  Ga.  492 277 

Mayor  of  New  York,  In  re,  11  Johns.  80 80 

Mays  v.   Williams,   27   Ala.   267 .187 

Maysville  T.  Co.  v.  How,  14  B.  Mon.  26 334 

Notes  on  Constitution — 52 


818  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Meade  v.  United  States,  2  Ct.  of  CI.  224 659 

Meador,  Ex  parte,  1  Abb.   (U.  S.)   317 216,  624,  639,  642,  643 

Meadville  v.  Erie  Canal  Co.,  18  Pa.  St.  66 359,  361 

Mechanics'   etc.   Bank   v.   Allen,   28   Conn.   97 429,   430 

Mechanics'  Bank  v.  Debolt,  18  How.  380 289,   332,   352 

Mechanics'  Bank  v.  Thomas,  18  How.  384 352 

Mechanics'  Bank  v.  Union  Bank,  22  Wall.   276 

274,  275,  472,  473,  474,  498,  509 

Medley,  In  re,  134  U.  S.  171 228,  253,  254,  255 

Meekins   v.   Creditors,   10   La.   Ann.   497 162 

Melcher   v.   Boston,   9   Met.    75 84 

Mellen  v.  Moline  Iron  Works,  131  U.  S.  366 337 

Mellinger  v.   Houston,   68   Tex.   36 408,   409 

Members  Elected  by  General  Ticket,  1  Bart.  52 57 

Memphis  v.  United  States,  97  U.  S.  295 291,  397 

Memphis   City  Bank  v.   Tennessee,   161   U.   S.   190 299,   303 

Memphis  Gas  Co.  v.  Shelby  County,  109  U.  S.  400 300,  34S 

Memphis  etc.  K.  B.  v.  Berry,  41   Ark.   445 341 

Memphis   R.   R.   Co.   v.   Commissioners,   112   U.   S.   623 302,   351 

Memphis  etc.  Ey.  v.  Tennessee,  101  U.  S.  340 303 

Menard  v.  Goggan,  121  U.  S.  253 529 

Menges  v.  Wertman,  1  Pa.  St.  218 ". .   404 

Mercantile  Bank  v.  New  York,  121  U.  S.  152 94 

Mercantile  Bank  v.  Shields,  59  Fed.  956 575 

Mercer's  Case,  CI.  &  H.  44 46 

Merchants'  Bank  v.  Ballou,   98   Va.   112 264,   286,   427 

Me  chants'  Ins.  Co.,  Tn  re,  3  Biss.  162 163 

Merchants'  Nat.  Bank  v.  Braithwaite,  7  N.  Dak.  358 407 

Merchants'  National   Bank  v.  Pennsylvania,   167   U.   S.   466....     93 

Meriwether   v.   Garrett,    102   U.   S.   511 309 

Merrill    v.    Bowler,    38    Atl.    116 418 

Merrill  v.   Sherburne,  1  N.  H.   209 683 

Merryman,  Ex  parte,  Taney,  246 225,  493 

Mershon  v.  Pottsville  Lumber  Co.,  187  Pa.  St.  12 144 

Me-shing-go-me-sia  v.   State,   36  Ind.   316 149 

Messervey  's  Case,  1  Bart.  148 60 

Metcalf  v.   State,  49   Ohio  St.   5S6 312 

Metcalf  v.  Watertown,  128  U.  S.  587 532 

Metropolitan  Bank  v.  Van  Dyck,  27  N.  Y.  400 

27,  77,  89,  90,  171,  173,  195,  201,  212,  213,  218,  229,  249,  263,  467 

Metropolitan  Board  v.  Barrie,  34  N.  Y.  657 139,  297,  29S 

Metropolitan  B.  E.  Co.  v.  District  of  Columbia,  132  U.  S.  9 206 

Metropolitan  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Highland  Ry.  Co.,  118  Mass.  290 381 

Metzger,  In  re,   1   Park.   C.   C.   108 542,   613 

Metzger,  In  re,  5   How.   176 549 

Mexican   Central  Ry.   Co.  v.  Eckman,   187  U.   S.  429 531 

Mexican  Central  Ry.  Co.  v.  Pinckney,  149  U.  S.  194 507 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  819 

Mexican  National  Ey.  Co.  v.  Musette,  86  Tex.  708 284,  433 

Meyer   v.    Berlandi,    39    Minn.    438 426 

Meyer  v.   Bichmond,   172   U.   S.   94 649 

Meyers   v.    Shields,    61    Fed.    718 650 

Miami   County  v.  Brackenridge,   12  Kan.   122 353 

Michigan  State  Bank  v.  Hastings,  1  Doug.  225 332 

Michigan  Tel.  Co.  v.  St.  Joseph,  121  Mich.  502 324 

Micou  v.  Ashhurst,  55  Ala.  607 281 

Middlesex  Turnpike  Co.  v.  Locke,   8  Mass.   267 372 

Milam   v.   Bateman,    54    Tex.    153 313 

Milan  Milling  Co.  v.   Gorten,  93  Tenn.  594 108 

Milburn,   Ex   parte,   9   Pet.    704 549 

Miles  v.  King,  5  Eich.   146 394 

Miller,  In  re,  1  Abb.  (U.  S.)   263 246 

Miller,   In   re,   110   Mich.   677 256 

Miller  'a   Case,   Brown   Adm.    157 192 

Miller   v.    Craig,   3    Stock.    106 569 

Miller  v.  Dunn,  72  Cal.  462 31 

Miller   v.    Horton,    152   Mass.   540 726 

Miller  v.    Little,   47    Cal.    348 598 

Miller  v.  Mayor,  109  U.  S.  394 73,  97 

Miller  v.  Mayor,  18  Blatchf.  215,  10  Fed.  516 97 

Miller   v.   McQuerry,   5   McLean,   460 591,  671 

Miller  v.  Miller,  18  Hun,  507 584 

Miller  v.  Moore,  1  E.  D.  Smith,   739 268 

Miller  v.  Bailroad  Co.,   21  Barb.  513 377 

Miller  v.  Smith,  16  Wend.  441 433 

Miller  v.  State,  15  Wall.  588 283,  316,  332,  370,  371,  373,  377,  3S1 

Miller  v.  Texas,  153  U.  S.  539 709 

Miller  v.  United  States,  11  Wall.  305 193,  195,  559,  671 

Miller  v.  Van  Loben  Sels,  66   Cal.   342 54 1 

Millett  v.  People,   117  111.   294 713 

Milligan,   Ex  parte,  4  Wall.   2 195,   223,   224 

225,   470,   474,   475,    476,   498,   499,   521,    549,   552,    624,    625,  631 

Milligan  v.   Hovey,   3  Biss.   13 225,  631 

Milliken   v.   Sloat,   1   Nev.   5S5 218 

Mills'   Case,  Taft,  136 60 

Mills  v.  Brown,  16  Pet.  525 523 

Mills  v.  Duryee,  7  Cr.  4S5 564,  566,  568 

Mills   v.   Martin,   19   Johns.   24 202 

Mills  v.  St.  Clair  Co.,  8  How.  569 334,  358,  360 

Mills  v.  St.  Clair  Co.,  2  Gilm.  197 341,  342,  361 

Mills  v.  Williams,  11  Ired.   558 310 

Milne  v.  Huber,  3  McLean,  212 394,  400,  428 

Milner,  In  re,  1  Bank.  Eeg.  107 457 

Milner  v.  Pensacola,  2  Woods,  632 272.  317,  328 

Milwaukee  Industrial  School  v.  Supervisors,  40  Wis.  328 724 


820  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Mimmack  v.  United  States,  97  U.  S.  427 492 

Minder  v.  Georgia,  183  U.  S.  559 709 

Miner  v.  Markham,  28  Fed.  387 67 

Miner  v.  New  York  etc.  R.  R.,  123  N.  Y.  251 364 

Miners'  Bank  v.  Iowa,  12  How.  7 598,  600 

Miners'  Bank  v.  United  States,  1  Iowa,  553 357,  382 

Mineral  Paint  R.  R.  v.  Barron,  83  111.  367 410 

Minneapolis  v.  Reum,  56  Fed.  581 155,  701 

Minneapolis  etc.  Co.  v.  McGillivray,  10  Fed.  258   441 

Minneapolis  Ry.  Co.  v.  Beckwith,  129  U.  S.  29 698,  728 

Minneapolis  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Emmons,  149  U.  3.  363.  ...368,  442,  720 

Minneapolis  etc.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Gardner,  20  S.  Ct.  656 341 

Minneapolis  etc.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Milner,  57  Fe  1.  256 124 

Minneapolis'  etc.  Ry.  v.  Minnesota,  134  U.  S.  467 338 

Minnesota  v.  Barber,  136  U.  S.  326 123 

Minnesota  v.  Barber,  39  Fed.  641 123 

Minnesota  v.  Hitchcock,  185  U.  S.  386 525,  526 

Minnesota  v.  Northern  Securities  Co.,  184  U.  S.  199 528 

Minnesota  Co.  v.  St.  Paul  Co.,  2  Wall.  634 520 

Minor,  In  re,  69  Fed.  325 448 

Minor  v.  Happersett,  21  Wall.  166 42,  569,  603,  699,  701,  703,  738 

Minot  v.  Philadelphia  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  18  Wall.  231 352 

Minot  v.   Thacher,   48  Mass.   348 162 

Minot   v.   Winthrop,   162   Mass.    118 232 

Minturn   v.   Brower,   24  Cal.   663 212 

Minturn  v.  Larue,  1  McCall,  376 360 

Mississippi   v.   Johnson,   4   Wall.    500 

460,  462,  46S,  493,  494,  501,  525,  526 

Mississippi  Mills  v.  Cohen,  150  U.  S.  202 523 

Mississippi  etc.  R.  R.  v.  State,  46  Miss.  21S 243 

Missouri  v.  Illinois,  180  U.  S.  219 29 

Missouri  v.  Iowa,  7  How.  667 457,  546 

Missouri  v.  Kentucky,  11  Wall.  395 546 

Missouri   v.    North,    27    Mo.    464 138 

Missouri  v.  Telegraph  Co.,  23  Fed.  539 719 

Missouri  ex  rel.  v.  Murphy,  170  U.  S.  97 719 

Missouri  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Haber,  169  U.  S.  637 104,  125,  681 

Missouri  etc.  R.  R.  v.  Mackey,  127  U.  S.  208 336,  705,  720,  729 

Missouri  Pacific  Ry.  Co.  v.  Fitzgerald,  160  U.  S.  582 508 

Missouri  Pacific  Ry.  Co.  v.  Huir.es,  115  U.  S.  523 720 

Mitchell 's  Case,  18  Ct.  of  CI.  281 236 

Mitchell,  In  re,  62  Fed.   576 141 

Mitchell  v.  Board,  91  U.  S.  208 92 

Mitchell  v.  Campbell,  19  Or.  306 274 

Mitchell  v.  Clark,  110  U.  S.  641 406,  514 

Mitchell  v.  Cothrans.  49  Ga.  125 431 

Mitchell  v.  Great  Works  etc.  Co.,  2  Story,  648 161 

Mitchell  v.   Harmony,  13  How.   115 646.   656 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  821 

Mitchell  v.  Lenox,  14  Pet.   49 563 

Mitchell  v.  Steelman,  8  Cal.  363 95,  98,  99,  105,  106,  212 

Mitchell  v.  Tibbetts,  34  Mass.  298 203 

Mitchell  v.  Wolfe,  70  Ga.  627 409 

Mobile  v.  Emanuel,  1  How.  100 595 

Mobile  v.  Eslava,  16  Pet.  254 129 

Mobile  v.  Kailroad  Company,  84  Ala.  120 284 

Mobile  v.  Watson,  116  U.  S.  305 317 

Mobile  Ins.  Co.  v.  Columbia  etc.  Co.,  41  S.  C.  40S 369,  720 

Mobile  etc.  E.  R.  v.  Sessions,  28  Fed.  593 107 

Mobile  etc.  B.  E.  v.  State,  29  Ala.  573 265,  371 

Mobile  etc.  By.  v.  State,  51  Miss.  137 344 

Mobile  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Steiner,  61  Ala.  592 379 

Mobile  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Tennessee,  153  IT.  S.  506 271,  299,  696 

Mobile  School  Com.  v.  Putnam,  44  Ala.  406 310,  383 

Mock  v.  Commonwealth,  6  Bush,  397 141 

Moffatt  v.  Soley,  2  Paine,  103 503 

Mohawk  Bridge  Co.  v.  Railroad   Co.,   6  Paige,  544 360 

Mohawk  Bridge   Co.  v.  Utica  etc.   Co.,  6  Paige,   564 360,  361 

Mohr,  In  re,  73  Ala.  509 585 

Moncure  v.  Zants,  11  Wall.  416 673 

Monongahela  Nav.  Co.  v.  Coon,  6  Pa.  St.  375 370,  371,  375 

Monongahela  Nav.  Co.  v.  United  States,  148  U.  S.  342 

95,   97,  103,  383,  658,  659,  660,   661,  662 

Montana  Co.  v.  St.  Louis  Min.  Co.,  152  U.  S.  170 643,  644 

Montalet  v.  Murray,  4   Cr.   47 532 

Montclair  v.  New  York  etc.  By.,  45  N.  J.  Eq.  442 364 

Montello,  The,  11  Wall.  411 Ill 

MonteUo,  The,  20  Wall.  433 97 

Montgomery  v.  Hobson,  19  Tenn.  437 392 

Montgomery  v.  Kasson,  16  Cal.  194 292,  294 

Montgomery  Academy  v.   George,  14  La.  Ann.  395 330 

Montpelier  v.  East  Montpelier,  29  Vt.  12 313 

Moon  Sing  v.  United  States,  158  U.  S.  543 108 

Moor  v.  Beading,  21  Pa.  St.  188 171 

Moor  v.  Veazie,  32  Me.  343 95 

Moore  v.  American  Transp.  Co.,  24  How.  39 Ill 

Moore  v.  Fowler,  Hemp.  536 395,  425 

Moore  v.  Holland,  16  S.  C.  24 268,  286,  404,  427 

Moore   v.   Holliday,   4   Dill.   53 352 

Moore   v.   Illinois,   14  How.   20 119,  182,  586,  590,  591,  724 

Moore  v.  Indianapolis,  120  Ind.  492 298,  299,  344,  441 

Moore  v.  Litchford.   35   Tex.   213 36S,  427 

Moore   v.   Martin,    38    Cal.   428 424 

Moore  v.   Missouri,   159   U.   S.   677 255,   260,  732 

Moore  v.   New   Orleans,   32   La.   Ann.   747 270 

Moore    v.    State,    71    Ala.    307 256 

Moore  v.  State,  48  Miss.  147 439 


822  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Moore  v.  State,  43  N.  J.  L.  214 22S,  253,  256,  259,  633 

More   v.   Steinbach,   127   U.   S.   80 461 

Moran  v.  Sturges,  154  U.   S.  286 512,  513,  535 

Moran    v.    Goodman,    130    Mass.    158 299 

Moran  v.  New  Orleans,  112  U.  S.  74 131,  144,  453 

Moredock  v.  Kirby,  118  Fed.   180 707 

Morf  ord  v.  Unger,  8   Iowa,  82 311 

Morgan  's  Case,  Taf  t,  581 59 

Morgan,  In   re,   26   Colo.   415 712 

Morgan  v.  Dudley,  18  B.   Mon,   693 156,  1S8,  497 

Morgan  v.  Keenan,   1   S.   Ct.   331 244 

Morgan  v.  Louisiana,  93   U.   S.   221 300,  302,  348,   351,  355 

Morgan   v.  McGehee,   5   Humph.   13 150,  151 

Morgan  v.  Nagadish,  40  La.  Ann.  252,  3  South.  639 191 

Morgan    v.   Neville,    74   Pa.    St.    52 574 

Morgan  v.  Parham,  16  Wall.  476 131,  137,  453 

Morgan  etc.  S.  S.   Co.  v.  Board  of  Health,  118    U.  S.   465 

104,    124,    221,    234,   235,  453 

Morgan's  etc.  Co.  v.  Board  of  Health,  36  La.  Ann.  669 117 

Morley  v.   Thayer,   3  Feci.    740 270 

Morley  Machine  Co.  v.  Lancaster,  129  U.  S.  286 184,  186 

Morley  v.  Lr;ke  Shore  etc.  By,  146  U.  S.  162 285,  286,  405 

Morrill   v.   State,   38    Wis.    428 140 

Morris  v.  Burgess,  116  N.   C.   42 561 

Morris  V.  Columbus,  102  Ga.   792 725 

Morris   v.   People,   13   Wend.    325 316 

Morris    v.    State,    66    Tex.    728 317 

Morris   v.   United   States,    174   U.    S.    236 129 

Morris  &  E.  E.  R.  Co.  v.  Commissioners,  38  N.  J.  L.  472 352,  377 

Morse  v.  Goold,  11  N.  Y.  288 400,  406,  410,  433 

Morse  v.  Home  Ins.  Co.,  30  Wis.  506 97 

Morse   v.   Ho\ey,   1  Barb.   Ch.   404 158,    160,  161 

Morse   v.   Rice,   21   Me.   53 419 

Morton  v.  Daily,  1  Bart.  402 59 

Morton  v.  Grenada  Academy,  16  Miss.  773 312 

Morton  v.  Eutherf ord,  18  Wis.  298 394 

Morton  v.  Skinner,  48  Ind.  124 583 

Mosely  v.  Tuthill,  45  Ala.   647 243 

Moses  v.  Kearney,  31  Ark.  261 309,  316 

Moses  v.  United  States,  116  Fed.  526 470 

Moses  Taylor,  The,  4  Wall.  430.  .498,  510,  518,  519,  525,  534,  535,  538 

Mosher  v.  Bay  Circuit  Judge,   108  Mich.   503 401 

Mossrnan   v.    Higginson,    4    Dall.    14 505,  532 

Motes  v.  Bennett,  2  Fish.  Pat.   Cas.  642 670 

Motes  v.  United   States,  178  U.  S.  462 213,   214,  666 

Moultrie  County  v.  Fairfield,   105  U.   S.   375 320 

Moultrie  County  v.  Savings  Bank,  92  U.  S.  635 270,  320 

Mount  Hope  Cemetery  v.  Boston,  158  Mass.  512 313 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  823 

Mount  Pleasant  v.  Beekwiih,  100  U.  S.  525 309,  311 

Mower   v.    Kemp,    42    La.    Ann.    1007 296 

Mowrey  v.  Indianapolis  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  4  Biss.  86 345,  372 

Mrous  v.  State,  36  Tex.   Cr.  597 256,  259,  260 

Mudge   v.   Oitunissioners,   10   Eob.    (La.)     460 337 

Mugler  v.  Kansas,  123  U.  S.  661 214,  441,  500,  611,  698,  710,  717 

Mullen  v.  Log  etc.  Co.,  90  Me.  567 112 

Muller   v.   Dows,   94  U.   S.   445 538 

Mulligan   v.   Corbin,   7   Wall.   491 296 

Munford's  Case,   CI.  ■&  H.    318 69,   70 

Mumford  v.  Sewall,   11   Or.   67 277 

Mumf ord    v.    Wardwell,    3    Wall.    713 129 

Mumma  v.  Potomac   Co.,  8   Pet.   286 337,   370,  520 

Munday  v.   Assessors,   43   N.   J.   L.   338 326 

Mundy  v.   Monroe,   1   Mich.   68 398,  422 

Mungosah   v.   Steinbrook,  3  Dill.   419 149 

Municipality  v.  Commercial  Bank,  5  Eob.  (La.)  151 350 

Municipality  v.  State  Bank,  5  La.  Ann.  394 289 

Municipal  Inv.   Co.   v.   Gardiner,   62  Fed.   955 507 

Munn  v.  Illinois,  94  U.   S.   113 113,  114 

118,  221,  234,  235,  344,  345,  438,  524,  650,  651,  661,  714,  718,  719 

Munn    v.    People,    69    111.    80 717 

Murck  v.  Tomer,  21  Me.  535 148 

Mnrdock    v.    Cincinnati,    39    Fed.    891 645 

Murdoch   v.    Memphis,    20    Wall.    619 548 

Murdoek   v.    Ward,    178    U.    S.    146 232 

Murphy's   Case,   41    Mo.    339 251,  257 

Murphy,  In   re,   87   Fed.   551 228 

Murphy,   In    re,    1   Woolw.    141 228,  229 

Murphy  v.   Commonwealth,   172  Mass.  269 228,  255 

Murphy  v.   Gaskins,   28   Gratt.   207 268,   286,  427 

Murphy   v.    Manning,    134    Mass.    489 169 

Murphy  v.   Massachusetts,   177   U.   S.   158 639,  711 

Murphy   v.    People,    2    Cow.    815 551,    619,  663 

Murphy  v.  Eamsay,  114  U.  S.   42 252,  258,  259 

Murray,   Ex  parte,   93   Ala.    78 141 

Murray  v.   Chicago  etc.   Co.,  62  Fed.   24 512 

Murray   v.   Charleston,   96   U.   S.   449 

263,  271,  276,  277,   280,  2S2,  288,  289,  326,  328,  384 

Murray  v.   Hoboken   Land   etc.    Co.,   18   How.   272 

216,  499,  500,   624,   625,  627,  645 

Murray  v.   Louisiana,   163   U.   S.   101 730 

Murray   v.   McCarty,    2    Munf .    393 573 

Murray    v.    Menefee,    20    Ark.    566 361 

Murray  v.  Patrie,  5  Blatchf .  343 514 

Murray  v.   Wooden,    17   Wend.    5'51 147 

Muskogee  Nat.  Tel.  Co.  v.  Hall.  118  Fed.  382 10? 

Mutual  etc.   Co.   v.  Hillyard,  37   N.  J.  L.   489 193 


824  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Mutual   Assur.    Soc.    v.   Watts,   1   Wheat.    282 207 

Mutual  Benefit  Ins.  Co.  v.  Tisdale,  91  U.  S.  2:58 156 

Mutual  etc.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Winne,  20  Mont.  39 274,  430 

Mutual  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Cohen,  179  U.  S.  264 288 

Mutual  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Haight,  34  N.  J.  L.  130 92 

Mutual  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Richardson,  77  Fed.  398 389 

Myers  v.  Baltimore  County,  83  Md.  389 Ill,   146,  233,  445,  655 

Myers   v.   Boyd,   144   Ind.    499 272 

Myers   v.    Dodd,    9   Ind.    290 726 

Myers  v.  English,  9   Oal.  349 * 284 

Myers    v.    Sanders,    7    Dana,    5.9 226,  251 

Myrick    v.    Battle,    5    Fla.    345 284 

Narragansett  Indians,  In  re,  20  R.  I.  771 149 

Nashua  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Lowell  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  136  U.  S.  370 530 

Nashville  etc.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Alabama,  128  U.  S.  101. . .  .121,  553,  664,  720 

Nashville  etc.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Taylor,  86  Fed.  168 499,  519,  520,  697 

Natal    v.    Louisiana,    139    IT.    S.    621 552 

Nathan  v.  Louisiana,  8  How.  73   85,  138,  143,  245 

National  Bank  v.   Colby,   21   Wall.   613 158 

National  Bank  v.  Commonwealth,  9  Wall.  353 85,  93,  678,  680 

National  Bank  v.  Dearing,  91  U.  S.  35 32,  84 

National  etc.  Bank  v.  Mayor,  62  Ala.   292 84 

National  Bank   v.   Sebastian   Co.,   5   Dill.   416 326 

National  Bank  v.  United  States,  101  U.  S.  6 89 

National  Bank  v.  United  States,  104  U.  S.  212 

National  Bank  of  Yankton  County,  101  U.  S.  133 599,  601 

National  Distilling  Co.  v.  Cream  City  Imp.  Co.,  86  Wis.  352 112 

National   Exch.   Bank  v.   Peters,   144  U.    S.   572 518,   546 

National   Surety   Co.   v.    State   Bank,    120   Fed.    593 522.    523 

Neagle,   In   re,   135   U.   S.   67 219,   494 

Neal   v.    Delaware,   103    U.    S.    370 727,    730,    739 

Neass   v.   Mercer,  15  Barb.  318 398,  436 

Ned,    The,    1    Blatchf .    Pr.    119 195 

Neely  v.  Henkel,  180  U.   S.   126 462,  473,  484,   502 

Neff,   Appeal   of,   21   Pa.   St.   243 411 

Neff    v.    Beauchamp,    74    Iowa,    94 562 

Neil  v.  State,  3  How.  720 176,  282 

Neill,  In   re,   8   Blatchf.   156 198 

Neilson,  Petitioner,    131   U.    S.    3  88 636 

Neilson   v.   Garza,   2   Woods,   287 449,   450 

Neilson   v.   Lagow,   12   How.   108 36 

Nelson  v.  Allen,  1  Yerg.   360 265,  295 

Nelson  v.  Loraine,   22   Fed.   57 444,   446 

Nelson  v.   McCrary,   60   Ala.   310 412 

Nelson   v.   Vermont   etc.   R,   R.   Co.,   26   Vt.   717 368* 

Neuendorff  v.  Duryea,  69   N.  Y.   557 620 

Nevada  Bank  v.  Sedgwick,  104  U.   S.   Ill 82,  684, 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  825 

Nevada  Nat.   Bank  v.   Dodge,   119  Fed.   57 94 

Nevitt,   In   re,   117   Fed.    622 477 

Nevitt  v.  Bank,   14   Miss.   513 337,   387,   397 

New  Albany  etc.  B.  E.  v.  McNamara,  11  Ind.  543 434 

New  Albany  etc.  B.  E.  v.  Tilton,  12  Ind.  3 336,  368 

New  Buffalo  v.  Iron  Co.,  105  U.   S.   75 329 

Newcastle  etc.  E.  E.  Go.  v.  Beru  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  3  Ind.  464 341 

Neweomb   v.  Newcomb,   13   Bush,   571 565 

Neweomb,    v.    Smith,    1    Chand.    71 643,    651,    653,    656 

New  England  Ins.  Co.  v.  Dunham,  11  Wall.   31 538 

New  Hampshire  v.  Louisiana,  108  U.  S.  86.  .458,  459,  460,  526,  527,  688 

New  Hampshire  v.  Whittemore,  50  N.  H.  245 155 

New  Hampshire  County  v.  Franklin  County,  16  Mass.  76 312 

New  Haven  v.   City  Bank,   31   Conn.   106 353 

New   Haven   v.   Sheffield,   30   Conn.   160 303 

New  Haven   etc.   E.   E.   v.  Bunnell,    1   Conn.   59 440 

New  Haven  etc.  Ey.  Co.  v.  Hamersly,  104  U.  S.  1 319 

New  Jersey   Case,   1   Bart.   19 47 

New  Jersey  v.   New   York,   3   Bet.   464 527 

New  Jersey  v.   New  York,  5  Bet,   290 526,  527,   545,   546 

New  Jersey  etc.  Co.  v.  Strait,  35  N.  J.  L.  322 372 

New  Jersey  v.  Wilson,  7  Cr.  167 299,  301,  302,  387,  609 

New  Jersey  v.  Yard,  95  U.  S.  114 288,  369,  374,  378 

New  Jersey  Steam  Nav.  Co.  v.  Merchants'  Bank,  6  How.  392.. 

534,    536,    537,    538,    540 

Newkirk    v.    Chapron,    17    111.    344 433,    434 

New  Lamp  etc.  Co.  v.  Ansonia  etc.  Co.,  91  TJ.  S.  661 162,  163 

Newland  v.  Marsh,  19  111.  376 406 

Newman,   Ex    parte,    14    Wall.    165 549 

Newmarket  Bank  v.  Butler,  45  N.  H.  236 168 

New  Mexico  v.  United  States  Trust  Co.,  172    U.  S.  181 350 

New  Orleans  v.  Cazelar,  27  La.  Ann.  156 311 

New  Orleans  v.  Clark,  95  TJ.  S.  654 82,  276 

New  Orleans  v.  Cordiviolle,  13  La.  Ann.  260 265 

New  Orleans  v.  De  Armas,  9  Bet.  224 595 

New  Orleans  v.  Eclipse  Towboat  Co.,  33  La.  Ann.  650 331 

New  Orleans  v.  Taber,  105  La.  208 718 

New  Orleans  v.  Gaines,  138  U.  S.  606 531 

New  Orleans  v.  Great  Southern  etc.  Co.,  40  La.  Ann.  41 324 

New  Orleans  v.  Houston,  119  IT.  S.  278,  7  S.  Ct.  198 300,  340 

New  Orleans  v.  Morris,  3  Woods,  115 400 

New  Orleans  v.  New  Orleans  etc.  E.  R.,  35  La.  Ann.  682 275 

New  Orleans  v.  New  Orleans  Waterworks  Co.,  142  TJ.  S.  88 

284,   285,  310,  317,  318,  319,   649 

New  Orleans  v.  Fontz,  14  La.  Ann  853 265 

New  Orleans  v.  Santa  Anna's  Asylum,  31  La.  Ann.  295 377 

New  Orleans  v.  Steamship  Co.,  20  Wall.  398 472 

New  Orleans  v.  Texas  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  171  IT.  S.  343 341 


826  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

New  Orleans  v.  Turpin,  13  La.  Ann.  56 297 

New  Orleans  v.  Winter,  1  Wheat.  95 528,  532 

New  Orleans  v.  Wood,  34  La.  Ann.  755 271 

New  Orleans  Canal  etc.  Co.  v.  New  Orleans,  30  La.  Ann.  1371.  ..   409 

New  Orleans  Gas  Light  Co.  v.  Hart,  40  La.  Ann.  474 118,  439 

New  Orleans  Gas  Light  Co.  V.  Louisiana  Light  Co.,  115  U.  S.  672 

: 125,  270,  282,  288,  343,  438,  442,  443 

New  Orleans  etc.  R.  R.  v.  Delamore,  114  U.  S.  510. .  .324,  334,  335,  364 

New  Orleans  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Ellerman,  105  U.  S.  172 31 1 

New  Orleans  etc.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Harris,  27  Miss.  517 372 

New  Orleans  etc.  R.  R.  v.  Louisiana,  151  U.  S.  224 401 

New  Orleans  etc.  R.  R.  v.  New  Orleans,  143  U.  S.  195 300,  343 

New  Orleans  Waterworks  Co.  v.  Louisiana,  185  U.  S.  351 271 

New  Orleans  Waterworks  v.  Louisiana  Sugar  Co.,  125  U.  S.  31.  . 

, 271,281 

New  Orleans  Waterworks  v.  Rivers,  115  U.  S.  681 343,  438 

Newport  v.  Taylor,  16  B.  Mon.  699 113 

Newport  etc.  Co.  v.  United  States,  18  Fed.  Cas.  125 97 

Newport  Light  Co.  v.  Newport,  151  U.  S.  540 325 

Newstadt  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  R.  Co.,  31  111.  484 272 

Newton  v.  Bushong,  22  Gratt.  633 243 

Newton  v.  Commissioners,  100  U.  S.  561 300 

Newton  v.  Commonwealth,  82  Va.  647 305 

Newton  v.  Hagerman,  10  Saw.  462 167,  169,  418,  567 

Newton  v.  Mahoning  County  Commrs.,  100  U.  S.  559 309,  316 

Newton  v.  Tibbatts,  7  Ark.   153 -103,  419 

New  World,  The,  v.  King,  16  How.  472 540 

New  York   v.   Connecticut,   4   Dall.   1 526,   546 

New  York  v.   Miln,  11  Pet.   102, 

96,   106,  118,   119,   611,   622,   679,   681,  725 

New  York  v.  Roberts,  171  U.  S.  665 93,  133 

New  York  Cable  Ry.,  In  re,  40  Hun,  1 373 

New  York  Guaranty  etc.  Co.  v.  Board,  105  U.  S.  624 304 

New  York  Guaranty  etc.  Co.  v.  Tacoma  Ry.  etc.  Co.,  93  Fed.  56.  .   559 

New  York  Indians  v.  United  States,  170  U.  S.  23 482 

New  York  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Cravens,  178  U.  S.  401 109,  684 

New  York  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  's  Appeal,  62  Conn.  538 649 

New  York  etc.  R.  R.  v.  Bridgeport  Traction  Co.,  65  Conn.  429 356 

New  York  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Bristol,  151  U.  S.  567 

343,  344,  368,  380,  438,  680,  731 

New  York  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Long,  69  Gonn.  437 662 

New  York  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  New  York,  165  U.  S.  663.  ..  .102,  117,  731 
New  York  etc.  R.  R.  v.  Pennsylvania,  153  U.  S.  655 

83,  134,  364,  389,  578 

New  Zealand  Ins.  Co.  v.  Earnmoor  etc.  Co.,  79  Fed.  369 540 

Niagara  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Cornell.,  110  Fed.  816 611 

Nichols,  In  re,  8  R.  I.  55 142,  402 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  827 

Nichols  v.  Bertram,   20  Mass.   342 359 

Nichols  v.  New  Haven  etc.  Co.,  42  Conn.   125 350,  354 

Nichols  v.  S.  &  K.  K.  E.  Co.,  43  Me.  356 337 

Nicol  v.  Ames,  173  U.  S.  518,  89  Fed.  149 86,  232 

Nixon  v.  State,  2  Smedes    &  M.  497 664 

Noah,  In  re,  3  City  H.  Eec.  13 176 

Noble  v.  Union  etc.  Co.,  147  U.  S.  171 461 

Nobles  v.   Georgia,   168  U.   S.   405 712 

Nock  v.  United  States,  2  Ct.  of  CI.  451 507 

Noel  v.  Ewing,  9  Ind.  37 265,  286 

Nofire  v.  United  States,  164  U.  S.  662 151 

Noles  v.  State,  24  Ala.  691 607,  62S 

Nones  v.  Edsall,   1   WalL,  Jr.   189 67,     68 

Nordstrom  v.  Washington,  104  U.  S.  705 151 

Norfolk  etc.  Ey.  Co.  v.  Commonwealth,  S8  Va.  95 121 

Norfolk  etc.  E.  E.  v.    Commonwealth,  93  Va.  749 110,  126 

Norfolk  etc.  Ey.  v.  Pennsylvania,  136  U.  S.  118 133,  144 

Norman  v.  Heist,  5  Watts  &  S.  171 646 

Norris  v.  Androscoggin  E.  E.  Co.,  39  Me.  273 367 

Norris  v.  Boston,  45  Mass.  282 395 

Norris  v.  Clymer,  2  Penn.  277 171 

Norris  v.  Doniphan,  4  Met.  (Ky.)   409 217,  226,  251,  552,  648,  659 

North  Bloomfield  Min.  Co.  v.  United  States,  88  Fed.  675 100 

North  Cape,  The,  6  Biss.  505 451,  452,  453 

North  Carolina  v.  Mamel,  4  Dev.  &  B.  20 154,  699 

North  Carolina  v.  Newsonr,  5  Ired.  250 154,  622 

Northern  Counties  Trust  Co.  v.  Sears,  30  Or.  402 71 

Northern  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Barnes,  2  N.  Dak.  351 134 

Northern  E.  E.  v.  Concord  E.  E.,  27  N.  H.  183 341 

North  Missouri  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Maguire,  20  Wall.  46 277 

North  Missouri  E.  E.  v.  Maguire,  40  Mo.  499 353,  607 

North  Eiver  etc.  Co.  v.  Livingston,  3  Cow.  733 27,  36,  78,  113,  451 

Northrup  v.  Shook,  10  Blatchf.  254 87 

Northwestern  etc.  Co.  v.  St.  Louis,  4  Dill.  15 454 

Northwestern  U.  P.  Co.  v.  St.  Paul,  3  Dill.  454 452,  455 

Northwestern  Univ.  v.  Illinois,  99  U.  S.  309 349 

North  Yarmouth  v.   Skillings,  45  Me.   133 310,  312 

Norton,   Ex  parte,   44  Ala.   184 241,  430 

Norton  v.  Cook,  9  Conn.  314 167,  169,  170,  418 

Norton  v.  Pettibone,  7  Conn.   319 404 

Norton  v.  Shelby  County,  118  U.  S.  450 329,  4S5,  488 

Norton  v.  Switzer,  93  U.  S.  356 537,  538 

Norwood   v.   Blodgett,    Taft,    331 50 

Nougue  v.  Clapp,  101  U.  S.  555 512 

Nuestra  Senora  de  la  Caridad,  The,  4  Wheat.  494 494 

Nugent 's  Case,  18  Fed.  Cas.  472 63,  65 

Nugent  v.  State,  18  Ala.  52 505 


828  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Nunn  v.  State,  1  Ga.  243 622,  623 

Nutt  v.  United  States,  125  U.  S.  655 237 

.Nutting  v.  Massachusetts,  183  U.  S.  553 717 

Oakes  v.  United  States,  174  U.  S.  790 535 

Oakland  Sugar  Mill  Co.  v.  Fred  W.  Wolf  Co.,  118  Fed.  239 132 

O'Brien  v.  Miller,  168  U.  S.  287 535 

O'Brien  v.  Wheelock,  184  U.  S.  489 697 

O  'Brien  v.  Young,  95  N.  Y.  428 285 

O'Bryan  v.   Allen,   108   Mo.   227 436 

Ochiltree   v.   Railroad,   21   Wall.    253 263,   345,   397,405 

O'Conley  v.   City  of  Natchez,  9  Miss.   31 454 

O'Connell  v.  Reed,  56  Fed.  534 498 

O'Connor,  Tn  re,  37  Wis.   379 210,  211 

Oconto,  The,  5  Biss.  463 112 

O'Donnelly  v.   Bailey,   24   Miss.   386 318,353 

Officer  v.  Young,  5  Yerg,  320 265,  336 

Ogden  v.  Saunders,  12  Wheat.  266 

27,  30,  31,  154,  161,  162,  166,  167,  172,  229,  257,  282,  287,  382, 
385,  386,  389,  395,  398,  399,  417,  418,  433,  435,  511,  567,  611,  681 

Ogden  v.  Walker,  59  Imd.  464 92 

Ohio  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Debolt,  16  How.  432 

; 271,    289,    291,    341,    348,  352 

Ohio  Oil  Co.  v.  Indiana,   177  U.  S.  203 721 

Ohio  etc.  R,  R.  v.  McClelland,  25  111.  140 336 

Ohio  etc.  E.  R,  Co.  v.  Wheeler,  1  Black,  297 528,  530 

Ohio  Trust  Co.  v.  Debolt,  16  How.  428 291,  299,  334,  356,  68  i 

Olcott  v.  Supervisors,   16  Wall.  590 272,  397 

Olden  v.  Hart,  5  N.  J.  L.  466 417 

Oldens  v.  Hallett,  3  N.  J.  L.  466 563 

Oldham  v.  Birmingham,   102   Ala.   366 287 

Olds  Wagon  Works  v.  Benedict,  67  Fed.  1 507 

Old  Town  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Veazie,  39  Me.  571 372 

Oliver,  In  re,  17  Wis.  681 225,  463 

Oliver  v.   McClure,   28    Ark.   561 402,   422,  424 

Oliver  v.  Memphis  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  30  Ark.  131 240,  281,  349 

Oliver  Finney  Grocery  Co.  v.   Speed,  87  Fed.  415 138 

Olmstead's    Case,    Bright.    9 687 

Olmstead  v.  Kellogg,  47  Iowa,  460 425 

O  'Neal  v.  American  Ins.  Co.,  166  Pa.  St.   72 38 

O'Neal  v.  St.  Olaf ' s  School,  26  Minn.  329 426 

Opel  v.  Shoup,  100  Iowa,  424 481 

Opinion   of  Justices,   80'  Mass.   548 204 

Opinion  of  Justices,  41  N.  H.  556 155 

Opinion  of  Justices,  53  N.  H.  636 92 

Orchard  v.  Alexander,   157  U.  S.   383 645 

Ordinary  v.  Central  R.  R.  Co.,  40  Ga.  646 353 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  829 

Oregon  etc.  Ey.  Co.  v.  Oregonian  Ey.  Co.,  130  U.  S.  20 683 

O  'Eeilly  v.  Morse,  15  How.  119 184 

Organ  v.   State,  56  Ark.  267 128 

Oriental   Bank  v.   Treeze,   18   Me.   109 265,   400,   419,  435 

Orient  Ins.  Co.  v.  Daggs,  172  TJ.  S.  566 143,  336,  572,  577,  684,  707 

Origet  v.  Hedden,  155  U.  S.  238 650 

Ornelas  v.  Euiz,  161  II.  S.  509 584 

Orono,   The,   1   Gall.   137 463 

Orr  v.  Gilman,  183  U.  S.  278 350,  707 

Orr  v.  Lisso,  33  La.  Ann.  477 162,  417 

Orr  v.  Meek,  111  Ind.  40 718 

Orr  v.  Quimby,  54  N".  H.  654 236 

Ortiz,  Ex  parte,  100  Fed.  955 225 

Osborn  v.  Johnson  etc.  Co.,  99  Ala.  309 427 

Osborn  v.  Nicholson,   13  Wall.  654 438,  590,  693 

Osborn  v.  Nicholson,  1  Dill.  235 119,  270,  388,  646 

Osborn  v.  United  States,  91  U.  S.  478 477,  478,  479 

Osborne  v.  State,  33  Fla.  179 135,  139,  578 

Osborne  v.  Florida,  164  U.  S.  656 145 

Osborne  v.   Humphreys,   7   Conn.   335 301,   302,  396 

Osborne  v.  Mobile,  16  Wall.  481 133,  144,  453,  576 

Osborne   v.   Mobile,   44   Ala.   499 138,  681 

Osborne  v.  United  States  Bank,  9  Wheat.  866 

84,  85,  93,  153,  187,  217,  500,  501,  506,  510,  517,  518,  519,  520, 
522,  524,  526,  527,  542,  543,  545,  546,  547,  628,  680,  687,  688,  689,  701 

Oshkosh   Waterworks   Co.   v.   Oshkosh,   109   Wis.   208 309,  3S7 

Osterman  v.  Baldwin,  6  Wall.  122 157 

Oswald  v.  New  York,  2  Dall.  415 527 

Oswego  Bridge  Co.  v.  Fish,  1  Barb.  Ch.  547 359 

Otis   v.   Bacon,   7   Cr.   589 470 

Ouachita  Packet  Co.  v.  Aiken,  121  U.  S.  447 103,  454 

Ouachita  Packet  Co.  v.  Kimball,  16  Fed.  890 

Oulton  v.  Savings  Institution,  17  Wall.  IIS 87 

Oullahan  v.  Sweeny,   79  Cal.  539 431 

Overby  v.  Gordon,  177  U.  S.  220 518 

Owen  v.   Branch  Bank,   3   Ala.    258 245,  246 

Owen  v.  Peebles,  42  Ala.  343 274 

Owen  v.  St.  Louis  etc.  E.  E.,  83  Mo.    '~\ 365 

Owen  v.   Sioux   City,   91   Iowa,   196 344 

Owens,  In   re,   6   Biss.   434 410 

Owens  v.  Henry,  161  U.  S.  646 562 

Owensboro  Bank  v.  Owensboro,  173  U.  S.  667 So,       93 

Owings  v.  Norwood,  5  Cr.  348 521,  612 

Owings  v.   Speed,  5  Wheat.   420 37,   269,  616 

Pabst  Brewing  Co.  v.  Crenshaw,  120  Fed.  144 450 

Pace  v.  Alabama,  106  Ala.  585 704 


830  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Pace  v.  Burgess,   92  TJ.   S.  372 233,  449 

Pacific  Express  Co.  v.  Seibert,  142  U.  S.  352 135,  729 

Pacific  Gas.  Imp.  Co.  v.  Ellert,  64  Fed.  430 697 

Pacific  Insurance  Co.  v.  Soule,  7  Wall.  446.  ..86,  87,  231,  447,  452,  678 

Pacific  E.  R.  Co.  v.  Cass,  53  Mo.  17 348 

Pacific  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Maguire,  20  Wall.  36 

270,    299,    349,    350,    352,  354 

Pacific  Railway  Commission,  In  re,  12  Saw.  559,  32  Fed.  255.... 

527,  543,  625 

Packet  Co.  v.  Catlettsburg,  105  U.  S.  563 102,  103,  104,  454,  456 

Packet  Co.  v.  Keokuk,  95  U.  S.  84 454,  455 

Packet  Co.  v.  St.  Louis,  100  TJ.  S.  429 454 

Packing  Co.  v.  Provision  Cos.,  105  U.  S.  572 184 

Pacquette  v.   Pickness,   19  Wis.   219 395 

Padelford  v.  Mayor,  14  Ga.  438 27,  445,  450 

Padgett  v.   Post,   106  Fed.   600 317 

Paducah  Hotel  Co.  v.  Long,  92  Ey.  278 574 

Page  v.   Allen,   58   Pa.   St.   338 27,  153 

Page  v.  United  States,  127  TJ.  S.  69 66 

Paine  v.  Woodworth,   15  Wis.   298 401,  402 

Palfrey  v.   Boston,   101    Mass.    329 85 

Palmer  v.  Allen,  7   Cr.  565 517 

Palmer  v.  Barrett,  162  TJ.  S.   399 208 

Palmer  v.  Hixon,  74  Me.  448 164 

Palmer  v.  Love,  82  N.  C.  479 437 

Palmer   v.   McMahon,   133   U.   S.   670 92,   94,  715 

Palmer  v.  State,  39  Ohio  St.  239 179 

Pana  v.  Bowler,   107   TJ.   S.   541 272 

Panama,  The,  176  TJ.  S.  535 193,  194 

Panama  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Napier  etc.  Co.,  166  TJ.  S.  285 539,  540 

Parent   v.   Walmsley,   20   Ind.   82 148 

Paris  v.  Farmers'  Bank,  30  Mo.  575 34S 

Parish  v.   Ellis,  16   Pet.   453 522 

Park  v.  Detroit  Free  Press  Co.,  72  Mich.  560 620 

Parke  v.   Williams,   7   Cal.   247 56S 

Parke,  Ex  parte,  37   Tex.   Cr.   590 641 

Parker  v.  Breckner,  67  Tex.  20 327 

Parker  v.  Metropolitan  E.  E.  Co.,  109  Mass.  506 359,  383 

Parker  v.  Ormsby,  141  TJ.  S.  86 532 

Parker  v.   Otis,   130   Cal.   322 727 

Parker  v.  Eedfield,  10   Conn.  490 301,  302 

Parker  v.  Sanders,  46  Ark.   235 433 

Parker  v.   Savage,   6  Lea,  406 285 

Parker  v.  Shannonhouse,  Phill.   (N.  C.)   209 430 

Parker  v.  State,  111  111.  581 268 

Parker  v.  United   States,   1   Pet.   296 471 

Parkham  v.  Justice,   9   Ga.   341 646 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  831 

Parkhill,  The,  18  Fed.  Cas.  1197 195 

Parkhurst  v.  Capital  City  Ey.,  23  Or.  479 310 

Parkinson  v.  United  States,  121  U.  S.  282 629,  630 

Parks,  Ex  parte,  93  U.   S.   18 550 

Parks   v.   Coffey,   52   Ala.    36 241 

Parmenter  v.  State,  135  N.  T.  167 407 

Parrott,   In   re,   1   Fed.   481 240,   456,    697,  728 

Parrott    v.    Lawrence,    2    Dill.    537 333,  340 

Parsons  v.  Armor,  3  Pet.  425 673 

Parsons  v.  Bedford,  3  Pet.  483 522,  524,  669,  672 

Parsons  v.  District  of  Columbia,  170  U.  S.  45 81,  205,  523 

Parsons   v.   Bussell,   11    Mich.    113 643 

Parsons  v.  United  States,  167  U.  S.  331 486 

Paschal  v.  Whitsell,  11  Ala.  472 400 

Passaic  Bridges,  3   Wall.   782 100,  114 

Passenger  Cases,  7  How.   283 28,   81,   96,  99, 

106,  108,  113,  114,  116,  119,  154,  182,  221,  222,  234,  447,  453,  6!M. 

Patapsco  Guano  Co.  v.  Board  of  Agriculture,  52  Fed.  694 123 

Patapsco  Guano  Co.  v.  North  Carolina,  171  U.  S.  359 138,  444,  449 

Patin  v.  Prejean,  7   La.   301 267,  426 

Patrie  v.  Murray,  43  Barb.  323,  29  How.  Pr.  312 672 

Patten  v.  Accessory  Traction  Co.,  13   How.  Pr.  502 420 

Patterson's   Case,   Taft,   271 60,     64 

Patterson   v.   Belf ord,   1    Ells.    55 47 

Patterson  v.  Kentucky,  97  U.  S.  506 179,  180,  185,  439,  440,  443 

Patterson   v.   Kentucky,   1   Bush,   311 124 

Patton  v.  Brady,  184  U.  S.  608 232,  520 

Faul  v.  Chilsoquie,  10  Fed.  402 154,   57,  699 

Paul   v.   Virginia,   8   Wall.    183 

107,  109,  145,  573,  575,  576,  577,  578 

Paup  v.  Drew,  10  How.  224 250,  355,  356 

Payne   v.   Baldwin,    11    Miss.    661 333,  355 

Payne  v.  Kansas  etc.  E.  E.,  46  Fed.  503 654,  655 

Payne   v.    Treadwell,    16    Cal.    220 314 

Peabody  v.  Stetson,  88  Me.  279 166 

Pearee,   Ex  parte,   32   Tex.   Cr.   305 5S2 

Pearce  v.  Madison  E.  E.  Co.,  21   How.  441 372. 

Pearee  v.  Patton,  7  B.  Mon.  162,  45  B.  Mon.  61 406 

Pearce  v.  Texas,  155  U.  S.  313 588 

Pearsall  v.  Great  Northern  Ey.  Co.,  161  U.  S.  667 

284,    293,    341,    364,    373,  376 

Pearsall  v.   Great  Northern  By.   Co.,   73  Fed.  939 345 

Pearson   v.   Yewdall,    95   U.    S.    294 645,  668 

Pearson   v.   Zehr,   138   111.   48 726 

Peatt  v.  Northam,  5  Mason,  95 523 

Peck's   Case,   14   Ct.   of   CI.   84 661 

Peck's   Trial 4t)f) 


832  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Peck    v.    Hibbard,    26    Vt.    704 168 

Peck  v.  Jenness,  16  N.   H.  534 497,  512 

Peck  v.  LnckwootI,  5  Day,  22 130 

Peck   v.   Moody,   23    Tex.   95 294 

Pedro,   The,  175  U.   S.   354 194 

Peel   v.   January,    35   Ark.    337 565 

Peerce  v.  Kitzmiller,  19  W.  Va.  564 227,  253,  285,  411 

Peete    v.    Morgan,    19    Wall.    581 131,  453 

Feik  v.  Chicago  etc.  Ey.,  94  U.  S.  176 

Ill,  114,  339,  340,  367,  377,  383 

Pelonge  Scale  etc.  Co.  v.  American  Cutlery  Co.,  102  Fed.  916 184 

Pelton  v.   National  Bank,   101   IT.  S.   545 94 

Pelt  v.  Payne,  60  Ark.   637 392 

Pelton  v.  Platner,  13   Ohio,   209 565 

Penrbina  Min.   Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  125  U.  S.  187 

107,    143,    144,    577,    728,  729 

Pendleton   v.   State,   6   Ark.   509 571 

Penhallow  v.  Doane,  3  Dall.   93 35 

Peninsular  Lead  Works  v.  Union  etc.  Co.,  100  Wis.  488.  .391,  396,  403 

Penn  v.  Tollison,  26  Ark.  545 242,  243,  685 

Penniman's    Case,   103   U.    S.    717 402,419 

Penniman,  In  re,  11  E.  I.  338 398,  402 

Pennock  v.  Dialogue,  2  Pet.   210 184 

Pennoyer  v.  Neff,  95  U.  S.  720.  .510,  511,  562,  565,  567,  643,  680,  682 

Pennoyer  v.  Connaughy,  140  U.  S.  25 294,  527,  687,  688 

Pennsylvania   Cases,   52   Pa.   St.   15 89 

Pennsylvania    v.    Quicksilver    Co.,    10    Wall.    553 541,  545 

Pennsylvania  v.  Wheeling  Br.,  9  How.   647 545 

Pennsylvania  v.  Wheeling  Br.  Co.,  18  How.  430 97, 

100,  103,  107,  111,  113,  114,  129,  176,  234,  235,  282,  391,  457,  545 

Pennsylvania  v.  Wheeling  etc.  Br.  Co.,  13  How.  560 684 

Pennsylvania  Co.  v.  St.  Louis  etc.  R.  E.  Co.,  118  U.  S.  297 530 

Pennsylvania   College   Cases,   13   Wall.    212 

324,   333,   334,  370,  371,  373,  374,  377 

Pennsylvania  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Miller,  132  U.  S.  84 

300,  341,  343,  363,  366,  370.  374,  375,  655 

Pennsylvania  E,  E,  v.  National  E.  E.,  23  N.  J.  Eq.  455 365! 

Pennsylvania  etc.  E.  E.   Co.  v.  Eiblet,  66  Pa.  St.   164 368 

Pennsylvania  Tel.  Co.,  In  re,  48  N.  J.  Eq.  91 136 

Penny   v.    Walker,   64   Me.   434 67 

Pennywit   v.    Eaton,    15   Wall.    384 473 

Pennywit  v.  Foote,  27  Ohio  St.  620 240,  241,  242,  562,  685 

People  v.  Adirondack  Ey.,  160  N.   Y.  248 654 

People  v.  Alameda  County,  26  Cal.  641 312 

People  v.  Arnold,  46  Minh.   268 637 

1  eople  v.  Auditor,  2  HI.  537 290 

People  v.  Babcoek,  11    Wend.   586 113,  13S 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  833 

People   v.   Barker,   60    Mich.    277 633 

People   v.    Bell,    10    Cal.    570 317 

People  v.   Bellet,   99   Mich.   151 439,  721 

People  v.  Bene,  130  Cal.  159 665 

People  v.  Berrien  Circuit  Judge,  124  Mich.  664 717 

People  v.   Bilsecker,   169   N.   Y.   53 718,  720 

People  v.  Bond,  10  Cal.  563 328 

People   v.   Bowen,   3    Cal.    442 476 

People  v.  Brady,  56  N.  Y.  182 581,  583 

People  v.  Brady,  40  Cal.  198 680,  693,  694 

People  v.  Brooks,  4  Benio,  469 95,  96,  99 

People  v.  Buffalo,  140  N.  Y.  300 325 

People  v.  Buffalo  Fish  Co.,  164  N.  Y.  93 129 

People    v.    Campbell,    59    Cal.    243 261 

People  v.   Campbell,  138  N.  Y.  543 180 

People  v.  Carpenter,  46  Barb.  619 398 

People  v.  Central  Pacific  E.  E.  Co.,  43  Cal.  398 133 

People  v.  Chicago  West  Div.  Ey.  Co.,  18  111.  App.  125. 324 

People  v.   Clarke,  9  N.  Y.   349 293 

People   v.    Clayton,   4   Utah,    432 600 

People  v.  Cogswell,  113   Cal.  139 330 

People  v  Coleman,  4  Cal.  46 82,  104,  576 

People  v.  Coler,  166  N.  T.  1 712 

People   v.   Commissioners,   4   Wall.    244 84,    92,  93 

People  v.  Commissioners,  104  IT.  S.  468 446 

People  v.  Commissioners,  35  N.  Y.  426 92 

People  v.  Commissioners,  47  N.  Y.  501 349 

People  v.  Commissioners,  5  Denio,  401 82 

People  v.  Compagnie  Generale  etc.,  107  IT.  S.  61 

106,   108,   116,   222,  446,   447,  450 

People   v.   Constant,   11   Wend.   511 171 

People  v.  Cook,  148  IT.  S.  408 297,  336,  374,  376 

People  v.   Cook,   44   Cal.   640 91 

People   v.   Cross,   135   N.   Y.   536 582,  584 

People  v.  Curtis,  50  N.  Y.  321 240,  456,  457,  483,  587 

People   v.   Dawell,   25   Mich.   247 28,  563 

People  v.  Def oor,  100  Cal.  150 635 

People  v.  De  La  Guerra,  40  Cal.  311 570 

People  v.  Donohue,  84  N.  Y.  441 581 

People  v.  Downer,  7  Cal.  169 108,  116,  447 

People  v.  Fish,  125  N.  Y.  151 703 

People  v.  Fishkill  etc.  Co.,  27  Barb.  445 316,  318 

People  v.  Fitch,  148  N.  Y.   78 81 

People  v.  Flagg,  46  N.  Y.  401 315 

People  v.  Gallagher,  93   N.  Y.  438 731 

People  v.  Gallagher,  11  Abb.  N.  C.  187 702 

People  v.  Gerke,  5  Cal.  381 483 

Notes  on  Constitution— 53 


834  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

People  v.   Gillson,  109  N.  Y.   389 716 

People  v.   Girard,  145  N.  Y.   105 722 

People   v.   Godfrey,    17   Johns.    225 208,  209 

People   v.    Goodwin,    18   Johns.    187 633 

People    v.    Green,    2    Wend.    274 171 

People    v.   Hall,    8    Colo.    492 288 

People   v.   Havnor,   149   N.   Y.   195 439,  732 

People  v.  Hawkins,  157  N.  Y.   1 128,   139,  714 

People    v.   Hawley,   3   Mich.    330 82,  439 

People  v.  Hayes,  140  N.  Y.  491 256 

People   v.   Hays,  4  Cal.   127 413 

People   v.   Highway   Commrs.,   53   Barb.    77 314 

People  v.  Hill,  126  N.  Y.   504 204,  310 

People  v.  Hills,  46  Barb.  340 316,  377,  37S 

People  v.  Home  Ins.   Co.,  29   Cal.   533 277 

People  v.  Howker,  152  N.  Y.  234 229,  257 

People  v.  Huntington,  4  N.  Y.  Leg.  Obs.  187 Ill 

People   v.   Jenkins,   1   Hill,   469 119 

People  v.  Heeler,  99  N.  Y.  476 63 

People  v.  King,  2  Caines  Eep.  98 630 

People  v.  Lee  Fat,  54  Cal.  531 666 

People  v.  Lent,  2  Wheel.  C.  C.  548 209 

People  v.  Lippincott,  67   111.   333 290 

People  v.  Livingston,  6  Wend.  526 265 

People    v.    Loeffler,    175    111.    609 290,  572 

People   v.   Lord,   12   Hun,   282 253 

People    v.    Lynch,    11    Johns.   553 559 

People   v.   McDaniels,    137    Cal.    192 636,  637 

People  v.  McDonnell,  80  Cal.  2SS 174 

People   v.   McGowan,   17   Wend.    386 635 

People   v.   McGowan,   77   111.   647 153 

People  v.  Mallary,  195  111.  582 711 

People  v.  Manhattan  Co.,  9  Wend.  351 333 

People   v.   Marshall,   1   Gilnr.   672 370 

People   v.    Marx,   99   N.   Y.    377 722 

People   v.   Mather,   4   Wend.    230 641 

People  v.  Mayhew,  26  Cal.  663 250 

People  v.  Mayor,  4  N.  Y.  425 82 

People  v.  Mayor,  32  Barb.  102 359 

People  v.  Mayor  of  Brooklyn,   6   Barb.   309 659 

People  v.  Miner,  144  111.  348 635 

People  v.  Mitchell,  45  Barb.   20S 320,  435 

People   v.   Mitchell,   35   N.  Y.   552 275 

People  v.  Montgomery,  67  N.  Y.   109 304 

People  v.  Moring,  3  Abb.  Dec.   539 143,  448 

People   v.   Morris,   13   Wend.   325 310 

People   v.  Morse,   43   Cal.   535 329 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  835 

People   v.   Mortimer,   46   Cal.   114 262 

People   v.   Naglee,   1   Cal.   231 614,  682 

People  v.  Ny    Sam  Chung,  94  Cal.  304 636 

People  v.   O'Brien,   111   N.  Y.  49 332,  377,  382,  383 

People   v.   Oehotski,   115  Mich.   601 637 

People    v.    O  'Neil,    110    Mich.    324 128 

People  v.  Pacific   Mail  S.  S.   Co.,   8   Saw.   640 446 

People  v.  Pacific  Rolling  Mills,  60  Cal.  327 455 

People  v.  Penhallow,  42  Hun,  103 666 

People   v.   Pinckney,   32    N.   Y.    377 ... 290,  310 

People  v.  Plank-road  Co.,  9  Mich.  285 337 

People  v.  Piatt,  17  Johns.  195 Ill,  292,  293,  295,  395 

People  v.  Powell,  87   Cal.   359 261 

People   v.   Power,   25   111.   187 314,  318 

People  v.  Quigg,  59  N.  Y.   83 671 

People   v.    Raymond,   34   Cal.    498 108,    116,449 

People  v.  Raymond,  96  N.  Y.  3S 255 

People  v.  Rensselaer  etc.  R.  R.,  15  Wend.  113 112,   113,  451 

People   v.   Robb,   126   U.   S.    182 486 

People  v.  Roberts,  92  Cal.  659 454 

People  v.  Roberts,   158   N.  Y.   166 448 

People  v.  Roberts,  159  N.  Y.   75 179 

People    v.    Roper,    35    N.    Y.    629 284,    289,290 

People   v.   Russell,   49    Mich.    619 186 

People  v.  San  Francisco,  4  Cal.   139 423 

People    v.    Schenck,    2    Johns.    479 586 

People   v.   Sharp,   107   N.   Y.   -^45 63 

People   v.   Squire,    107    N.   Y.    593 724 

People   v.  Squires,   1   N.   Y.   St.   Rep.   633 324 

People  v.   Stanley,   47    Cal.    113 255,  638 

People  v.  Supervisors,  73  N.  Y.  397 191,  315,  328 

People  v.  Tax  Commissioners,  17  N.  Y.  Supp.  255 235 

People  v.  Terney,  57  Hun,  327,  10  N.  Y.  Supp.  940 136 

People  v.  Tice,  131  N.  Y.  651 641 

People  v.  Tighe,  9  Misc.  Rep.  607 727 

People    v.    Turner,    117    N.   Y.    227 710,715 

People   v.   United   States,   93   111.   35 593 

People  v.   Wabash   etc.   Ry.   Co.,   104   111.   476 113 

People   v.  Walling,   53   Mich.   270 444 

People  v.  Warden,  144  N.  Y.  529 718 

People  v.  Warden,  157  N.  Y.   116 716 

People  v.  Washington,  36  Cal.  658 154,  614,  692,  694,  695 

People  v.  Weaver,  100   U.   S.   543 94.  21S 

People   v.   Welch,   141   N.   Y.   266 106 

People    v.    Wemple,    117    N.    Y.    136 132 

People    v.    West,    166    N.    Y.    293 ' 722 

People    v.    White,    34    Cal.    183 174 


836  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

People  v.  Woods,  7  Cal.  579 328 

People   v.    Wright,    2    Caines,    213 586 

People  ex  rel.  v.  Assessors,  156  N.  Y.  420 86 

People  ex  rel.  v.   Carrique,  2  Hill,  98 69,  487 

People  ex  rel.  v.  McDonald,  5  Wyo.  533 261 

People   ex  rel.  v.   Otis,  90   N.   Y.  52 389 

People  ex  rel.  v.  Perkins,  85  Cal.  513 487 

People   ex   rel.   v.   Whitman,   10   Cal.   38 488 

People's   Ferry   Co.   v.   Beers,   20   How.   401 537,538 

People's  Nat.  Bank  v.  Marye,  107  Fed.  570 94 

Penrose   v.   Eeed,    2    Grant,    472 398 

Pensacola  etc.  Tel.  Co.  v.  Western  Tel.  Co.,  96  U.  S.  9 

95,  105,  111,  122,  144,  176,  610 

Penrose  v.  Erie  Canal  Co.,  56  Pa.  St.  46 346,  399,  410 

Peoria    v.    Preston,    35    Iowa,    115 372 

Pepin   v.   Laehennreyer,   45   N.   Y.    34 242 

Perdicaries  v.  Charleston  etc.  Co.,  Chase,  435 242 

Pereles   v.    Watertown,    6    Biss.    79 407 

Perkins,    Ex    parte,    29    Fed.    906 738 

Perkins,  In  re,  2  Cal.  455 270,  590,  591,  600 

Perkins  v.   Corbin,   45   Ala.   119 287 

Perkins    v.    Rogers,    35    Ind.    163 194,  241 

Perkins  v.  Slack,  86  Pa.  St.   270 315 

Perkins   v.   Watertown,   5   Biss.   320 316,  327 

Perley  v.   Mason,   64   N.  H.   7 41S 

Permoli  v.  First  Municipality,  3  How.  609 593,  595,  619,  620,  682 

Perrin  v.   Oliver,   1  Minn.   202 375,  381 

Perrine  v.  Chesapeake  etc.   Canal,  9   How.   192 363 

Perris    v.    Hexamer,    99    U.    S.    676 181,  182 

Perry  v.   Commonwealth,  3   Gratt.   632 261 

Perry  v.  Haskins,  111  Fed.  1002 185 

Perry    v.    Langley,    2    Bank.    Eeg.    ISO 162,164 

Perry  v.  State,  87  Ala.  30 262 

Pervear  v.   Commonwealth,   5   Wall.   475 

81,    86,    139,    140,    440,    448,    607,675 

Peters   v.   Eailroad   Co.,    23   Mo.    103 343,345 

Peters  etc.  E.  E.,  In  re,  70  N.  Y.  327 319 

Peterson  v.  Society,  24  N.  J.  385 310 

Petrie  v.  Commercial  Bank,  142  U.  S.  648 519 

Petty,  In   re,   22   Kan.   477 253,  255 

Peyaud  v  State,   13  Miss.   491 246 

Peyroux   v.   Howard,   7   Pet.    324 535,   537,  541 

Phalen  v.  Commonwealth,  8  How.  163 297,  406,  408,  439,  726 

Phelps '    Case,   Taft,    16 52 

Phelps   v.   Borland,   103   N.   Y.   410 167,   418,  567 

Phelps  v.  Oaks,  117  U.  S.   239 498 

Phelps  v.  Eacey,  60  N.  Y.   15 443 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  S37 

Phelps  v.   Sowles,   19   Wend.   547 196 

Phenix  Ins.  Co.,  Ex  parte,  118  U.  S.  616 539 

Philadelphia  v.  American  Union  Tel.  Co.,  167  Pa.  St.  406 136 

Philadelphia  v.   Fox,   14  P.  F.  Smith,   169 310,    311,  316 

Philadelphia  etc.  Assn.  v.  New  York,  119  U.  S.  18.  .109,  143,  684.  707 

Philadelphia  etc.  Co.  v.  Gortland,  6  Phila.  128 339,  361,  362 

Philadelphia  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Bowers,  4  Houst.   506 

292,   337,   344,   364,   366,   369,  439 

Philadelphia  etc.  E.  E.  v.  Maryland,  10  How.  393 299,  347,  355 

Philadelphia  By.  Co.  v.  Morrison,  19  Fed.  Cas.  488 245 

Philadelphia  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Philadelphia  etc.  Towboat  Co.,  23 

How.  215    540 

Philadelphia  etc.  E.   E.  v.  Southwestern  Pennsylvania  E.  E.,   77 

Pa.    St.    173 368 

Philadelphia  S.  S.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  122  U.  S.  343..., 

107,    115,    130,    132,    134,  453 

Philbriek   v.   Philbrick,   39   N.   H.    468 403 

Philbrook    v.    Newman,    85    Fed.    142 702,  706 

Phillips,  In  re,  10  Int.  Eev.  Eec.  107 639 

Phillips  v.  Detroit,   111  U.  S.   60S 184 

Phillips    v.    Hatch,    1    Dill.    576 193,194 

Phillips  v.  Payne,  92  U.  S.   132 210,  462,   494,  502 

Phillips   v.   State,   85   Tenn.   551 637 

Phinney  v.  Phinney,  81  Me.  461 389,  415,  422 

Phoenix   Ins.   Co.   v.   Burdett,   112   Ind.   205 515 

Phoenix  Ins.  Co.  v.  Commonwealth,   5  Bush,   68 572 

Phoenix  Ins.  Co.  v.  Levy,  12  Tex.  Civ.  App.  45 732 

Phoenix  Ins.  Co.  v.  Tennessee,  161  U.  S.  178 300,  348,  351,  354 

Phoenix  Nat.  Bank  v.  Batcheller,  151  Mass.  590 168,  418 

Pickard  v.  Pullman  Car  Co.,  117  U.   S.  49 104,  107,  137,  144 

Pickard   v.   Eailroad   Co.,   117   U.  S.   48 129 

Piekard  v.  Tennessee  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  130  U.  S.  642 351,  355 

Pickler  v.  McLellon  Drydock  Co.,  38  Da.  Ann.  412 315 

Picquet  v.   Swan,  5   Mason,   55 206,   532 

Piedmont  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Eeidsville,  101  N.  C.  407 133 

Pierce  v.  Carskadon,  16  Wall.  239 229,  251,  258,  431 

Pierce  v.  Mill,  21  Ind.   27 417 

Pierce  v.  Somersworth,  10  N.  H.  369 342 

Piggott  's   Case,   1   Bart.   463 43 

Pike  v.  Wassell,  94  U.  S.  714 559 

Pinckney   v.   Lanahan,    62    Md.    450 163 

Pine  Grove  Twp.   v.   Talcott,   19   Wall.   676 272 

Pingree  v.  Michigan  Cent.  E.  E.,  118  Mich.   329 341.  365 

Pingree  v.  Washburn,  1  Aik.  264 339,  361,  362,  370 

Pinney  v.  Nelson,  183  U.  S.   147 269,   395 

Pintsch  etc.   Co.  v.  Bergin,  84  Fed.   141 156 

Piott  v.  Covington  etc.  Bridge,  8  Bush   (Ky.),  37 360 


838  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Piqua  Branch  Bank  v.  Knoop,  16  How.  3S9 

275,  282,  288,  289,  299,  330,  332,  333,  336,  349,  352,  357,  684 

Piscataqua  Bridge  v.  New  Haven  Bridge,  7  N.  H.  35 113,  341,  397 

Pitkin   v.   Thompson,    30   Mass.   64 169 

Pittelkow,  In  re,  92  Fed.  903 163 

Pitts    v.    Hall,   2    Blatchf.    234 184 

Pittsburgh   v.  National  Bank,   55   Pa.   St.   45 85,   93 

Pittsburgh  Coal  Co.  v.  Bates,  156  U.  S.  587 444 

Pittsburgh  etc.  Coal  Co.  v.  Louisiana,  156  U.  S.  600 

118,  124,  444,  451 

Pittsburgh  etc.  E.  R.  Co.,  Appeal  of,  122  Pa.  St.  571 657 

Pittsburgh  etc.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Backus,  154  U.  S.  421.  .83,  133,  644,  714,  731 

Pittsburgh  etc.  Ry.  v.  Board,  172  U.  S.  43 132 

Pittsburgh  etc.  Ry.   Co.  v.  Montgomery,   152  Ind.  1 731 

Pittsburg   etc.   R.    R.    v.   Southwestern   Pennsylvania   R.   R.    Co., 

77  Pa.  St.  173 344,  366 

Pittsburg  etc.  Turnpike  Co.  v.  Commonwealth,  2  Watts,  433....   428 

Plankroad  etc.  Co.  v.  Arndt,  31  Pa.  St.  317 372 

Plankroad  Co.  v.  Reynolds,  3  Wis.  287 383 

Planters'  Bank  v.  Sharp,  6  How.  328.  .166,  334,  355,  386,  387,  389,  419 

Planters'  Ins.  Co.  v.  Tennessee,  161  U.  S.  197,  16  S.  Ct.  466 303 

Plant  Inv.  Co.  v.  Jacksonville  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  152  U.  S.  77 531 

Piatt,  In  re,  7  Ben.  272 216,  645 

Piatt  v.  Archer,  9  Blatchf.  559 163 

Plaht  etc.  Co.  v.  Dowell,  17  Colo.  376.  .  .' 343,  344,  442 

Playford   v.   Commonwealth,   4  Pa.   St.   144 479 

Pleasants  v.  Roher,  17  Wis.   577 408 

Plessy,  Ex  parte,  45  La.  Ann.  87 693,  703,  705 

Plessy  v.  Ferguson,  163  U.  S.  550 440,  6S2,  693,  703,  705,  732 

Ploek   v.   Cobb,   64    Ala.    127 269 

Plumley  v.   Massachusetts,  155   U.   S.   473 117,   721 

Plummer  v.  Coler,  17S  IT.  S.   115 93 

Plymouth  v.  Jackson,  15  Pa.  St.  44 330 

Poe  v.  Duck,  5  Md.  6 169 

Poindexter  v.  Greenhow,  114  TJ.  S.  287 

78,  246,  247,   270,   2S2,  288,  305,  399,  687 

Police  Jury  v.  McDonouph,  7  Mart.,  O.  S.,  8 428 

Police  Jury  v.   Shreveport,  5  La.   Ann.   661 310    313 

Polk's  Case,  Taft,  213 .'643 

Pollard,  Ex  parte,  40  Ala.  77 402,  414,  417,  433,  434 

Pollard   v.   Files,   3   Ala.   47 . 129 

Polbrd  v.  Hagan,  3  How.  212 129,  210,  593,  594,  595,  596,  598 

Pollard  v.  Kibbe,  14  Pet.   412 481,   610,  612 

Pollard  v.   State,  65  Ala.  630 85,   87,  93 

Pollock  v.  Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.,  157  U.  S.  584 

• S3,  88,  231,  232,  233,  500,  611,  6S0 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  839 

Pollock  v.  Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.,  158  U.  S.  601 

45,    77,    86,    231,   232,  610 

Pollock  v.  Steamboat  Laura,  5  Fed.  136 476 

Polyart   v.   Goulding,   Fed.   Cas.   No.    10,701 432 

Pomeroy   &   Caldwell's  Case,   Taft,   368 60 

Pool,  Ex  parte,  2  Va.   Cas.  276 106,  497,  498,  504,  511 

Pool   v.    Young,    7   Mon.    587 3S7,    388,  414 

Poole  v.  Fleegler,  11  Pet.  209 457 

Pope   v.   Ashley,   13   Ark.   26S 407 

Porter  v.  Eockford  etc.  K.  E.  Co.,  76  111.  574 352 

Portland  v.  Meyer,  32  Or.  371 298,  343,  718 

Portland  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Boston  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  65  Me.  122.  .344,  367 

Portland  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Peering,  78  Mo.  61 368 

Portland  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Eailroad  Co.,  46  Me.  69 367 

Port  of  Mobile  v.  Watson,  116  U.  S.  305 320,  32S 

Port  Wardens  v.  The  Martha  J.  Ward,  14  La.  Ann.  289 454 

Portword  v.   Montgomery  County,  50   Miss.   523 312 

Post  v.  Riley,  18  Johns.  54 417 

Post  v.  United  States,  161  U.  S.  587 553,  6,32 

Postal  Tel.   Co.  v.  Adams,  155  U.   S.   696 132,  135,  136 

Postal  Tel.  Cable  Co.  v.  Charleston,  153  U.  S.  699 81,  131,  136,  287 

Postal  Tel.  Co.  v.  Eichmond,  99  Va.  102 135,  145 

Postmaster   General  v.   Early,   12   Wheat.    148 395 

Pott  v.  Sheboygan  County,  25  Wis.  506 315 

Potter  v.  Kerr,  1  Md.  Ch.  275 167,  169 

Potter  v.  Sturdevant,  4  Me.  154 404,  431 

Potts  v.   Creagher,   155  U.   S.   608 184 

Potts  v.  New  Jersey  Arms.  Co.,  17  N.  J.  Eq.   395 268,  423 

Potts  v.  Water  Power  Co.,  9  N.  J.  Eq.  592 268,  428 

Poughkeepsie  etc.  Plank  Eoad  Co.  v.  Griffin,  24  N.  Y.  150 372 

Pound  v.  Turck,  95  U.   S.   462 101 

Powell,   Ex  parte,   73   Ala.   519 478 

Powell,   Ex  parte,   20   Fla.   809 582 

Powell  v.  Boon,  43  Ala.  469 281,  604,  734 

Powell  v.  Madison,  107  Ind.  115 270 

Powell  v.  Pennsylvania,  127  U.  S.  686 69S,  706,  722,  732 

Powell  v.   Sammons,  31  Ala.  552 362 

Powell  v.  State,  69  Ala.  10 124,  139,  29S,  344,  441 

Powers  v.   Dougherty,   23   Ga.   65 395 

Pratt  v.  Chase,  44  N.  Y.  597 167,  254 

Pratt  v.  Jones,  25  Vt.  303 437 

Pratt  v.  Eeath,  44  N.  Y.  599 418 

Prairie   v.   Worth,   78   N.   C.   173 290 

Prentice  v.  Duluth  Storage  Co.,  58  Fed.  442 510 

Prentiss   v.   Brennan,   2   Blatchf .    164 206 

Presbyterian  Church  v.  New  York,  5  Cow.  538 303 

Prescott  v.  State,  19  Ohio  St.  184 62S 


840  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

President  etc.  v.  Shaef er,  104  Mo.  267 301 

President  v.  State,  45  111.  399 241 

President  v.  Trenton  City  Br.  Co.,  13  N.  J.  Eq.  49 332 

Presser   v.   Illinois,   116   U.   S.   204 623,   682,   703 

Press  Pub.  Co.  v.  Palk,  59  Fed.   326 180,  182 

Preston,  Tn  re,  36  Ohio  St.  428 713 

Preston  v.  Finley,  72  Fed.  855 .v 140 

Preston  v.  Walsh,  10  Fed.  1015 293,  687 

Price  v.   McCarty,   89  Fed.   87 588 

Price  v.  People,  119  111.  114 717 

Price  v.  St.  Louis  Ins.  Co.,  3  Mo.  App.  267 345 

Priestly   v.   Watkins,   62   Miss.   798 327 

Prigg  v.  Commonwealth,  16  Pet.  614 

27,   28,  212,  215,  497,  504,  511,  590,  591,  592,  609 

Prince,   Ex  parte,   27  Fla.   203 89 

Printing  House  v.  Trustees,   104  U.   S.   711 372 

Pritchard  v.  Norton,  106  U.   S.   137 288 

Privett  v.   Stevens,  25   Kan.   275 735 

Prize  .Cases,  2  Black,  680 193,  463,  470,  471,  493,  494 

Proprietors  v.  Haskell,  7  Me.  474 377,  378 

Protector,   The,    12   Wall.    702 194 

Providence  Bank  v.  Billings,  4  Pet.  560 

80,  81,  282,  288,  299,  334,  340,  341,  347,  680 

Providence  etc.  B.  E.,  Petitioner,  17  E.  I.  344 341 

Providence  S.  S.  Co.  v.  Hill  Mfg.  Co.,  109  U.  S.  589 106 

Provident  Inst.  v.  Massachusetts,  6  Wall.  629 92,  93 

Provident  Inst.  v.  Mayor,  113  U.  S.  515 395 

Pryor,  In  re,  55  Kan.  730 719 

Pryzbylowicz  v.  Missouri  Ey.  Co.,  3  McCrary,  586 660 

Pugh  v.  Bussel,  2  Blackf.  394 162,  164,  167,  168,  418 

Pullan  v.  Kinsinger,  2  Abb.  U.  S.  94 82,  645 

Pullen  v.  Hillman,  84  Me.  131 418 

Pulliam  v.  Osborne,  17  How.  475 512 

Pullman   Co.   v.   Adams,   189   IT.   S.   420 137 

Pullman  Car  Co.  v.  Missouri  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  115  U.  S.  594 364 

Pullman  Palace  Car  Co.  v.  Hay  ward,  141  U.  S.  36 137 

Pullman  etc.  Car  Co.  v.  Nolan,  22  Fed.  276 144 

Pullman  Palace  Car  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  141  U.  S.  23..  133,  137,  133 

Pullman  Southern  Car  Co.  v.   Nolan,  22  Fed.   280 107 

Pnmpelly  v.  Green  Bay   Co.,   13   Wall.   177 653,   654,   656,  658 

Pumphi  ev    v.    Mayor,    47    Ind.    145 315 

Putnam  v.  Bond,  15  Wis.  20 398 

Putnam  v.  Buch,  56  Fed.  418 332 

Putnam  v.  United  States,  162  IT.  S.  710 554 

Quackenbush  v.  Danks,  1  Denio,   128 411,  412 

Quackenbush  v.  United  States,  177  U.   S.  25 459,   494,  501 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  841 

Quarles,  In  re,  158  IT.  S.  537 37,  212,  215,  216,  219,  621 

Quimby   v.   Boyd,    8    Colo.    207 488 

Quincy  v.  Jackson,  113  U.  S.  338 323 

Quinn  's  Case,  12  Int.  Kev.  Bee.   151 205 

Quintana  v.   Tomkins,  1   N.   Mex.   29 56-J 

Eabasse,  Succession  of,  47  La.  Ann.  1452 431 

Eacehorse,  In  re,  70  Fed.   607 612 

Eademacher  v.   Milwaukee   etc.   Ey.   Co.,  41  Iowa,  297 346,   369 

Eader  v.  S.  E.  Eoad  Dist.,  37  N.  J.  L.  273 327,  398,  431 

Eadick  v.   Hutchins,   95  TJ.   S.   211 557 

Eae  v.  Hulbert,  17  111.  572 285 

Eahrer,  In  re,  140  IT.  S.  562 79,  128,  680,  698 

Eailroad  Commission  Cases,  116  U.  S.  325 339,  649 

Eailroad  Commissioners  v.  Portland  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  63  Me.  269..   367 

Eailroad  Co.  v.  County  of  Otoe,  16  Wall.  673 331 

Eailroad  Co.  v.  Equalizers,  85  Fed.  307 94 

Eailroad  Co.  v.  Fuller,  17  Wall.  568 95,  96,  114,  443 

Eailroad  Co.  v.  Gaines,  97  U.  S.  708 300,  348,  351,  355 

Eailroad  Company  v.  Hamblen  County,  102  IT.  S.  279 302,  531 

Eailroad  v.  Harris,  12  Wall.  86 20G 

Eailroad  Co.  v.  Heath,  9  Ind.  558 663 

Eailroad  Co.  v.  Hecht,  95  II.  S.  170 405,  434 

Eailroad  Co.  v.  Husen,  95  U.  S.  473 95,  96,  104,  107,  117,  118,  126 

Eailroad  Co.  v.  Johnson,  15  Wall.  195 90 

Eailroad  Co.  v.  Koontz,  104  IT.  S.  12 530,  683,  708 

Eailroad   Co.  v.  Loftin,  98  U.   S.  564 300,  34S 

Eailroad   Co.  v.  Loftin,  105  IT.   S.   261 300,   343 

Eailroad  Co.  v.  McClure,  10  Wall.  515 268,  269;  395 

Eailroad  Co.  v.  Maine,  96  IT.  S.  510 364,  379 

Eailroad  Co.  v.  Maryland,  21  Wall.  472 116,  130,  718 

Eailroad  Co.  v.  Mississippi,  102  IT.  S.  140 520,  521 

Eailroad  Co.  v.  Peniston,  3  Stew.  &  P.  302 450 

Eailroad  Co.  v.  Peniston,  18  Wall.   29 28,  82,  610 

Eailroad    Co.    v.   Pennsylvania,    15   Wall.    320 387,    389 

Eailroad  Co.  v.  Eichmond,  19  Wall.  590 99 

Eailroad  Co.  v.  Eichmond,   96  U.   S.  528 440,   649,   714 

Eailroad  Co.  v.  Eock,  4  Wall.  ISO 522 

Eailroad  Co.  v.  Veazie,  39  Me.   571 376 

Eailroad   Tax  Cases,   13  Fed.   754 37C.   715,    729 

Eailroad  Tax  Cases,  IS  Fed.   385 62S,   697 

Eailway   Co.    v.    Allerton,    18    Wall.    233 372 

Eailway  Co.  v.  Harris,  99  Tenn.  710 Ill 

Eailway  Co.  v.  Philadelphia,  101  U.  G.  536 

2S3,  301,  333,  343,  373,  374 

Eailway  Co.  v.  Eenwick,  102  IT.  S.  132 661 

Eailway  Co.  v.  Whitton,  13  Wall.  2SS 510,  514,  530 


842  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Raleigh  etc.  Co.  v.  Davis,  2  Dev.  &  B.  451 82 

Raleigh  etc.  R.  R.  v.  Reid,  13  Wall.  269 352,  353 

Ralli  v.  Troop,  157  U.  S.  405 65G 

Ralls  County  v.  Douglass,  105  U.  S.  732 329 

Bulls  County  Court  v.  United   States,  105   U.   S.   738 328 

Ralston   v.   Lothain,   18   Ind.   303 430 

Ramsay  v.  Smith,  CI.  &  H.  23 42 

Ramsey  v.  Cox,  28  Ark.  369 246 

Rand  v.   Commonwealth,  9   Gratt.   738 255 

Rand  v.  State,  65  N.  C.  194 243 

Randall   v.   Kreiger,   23   Wall.   137 273,   392 

Randall  v.  Sackett,  77  N.  Y.  482 390 

Randolph   v.   Good,  3  W.   Va.   541 252 

Randolph   v.  Larned,   27   N.  J.   Eq.   557 254 

Randolph  v.   Middleton,   26   N.  J.   Eq.   545 390 

Ranger  v.  New  Orleans,  2  Woods,  128 328 

Rank,  In  re,  Crabbe,  493 165 

Ransom  v.  Abbott,   Taft,  336 00 

Ransom  v.  Mayor,  1  Fish,  264 184 

Rapier,  In  re,  143  U.  S.  134 77,  175,  176,  219,  620 

Rash   v.  Farley,   91   Ky.   344 138 

Rash  v.  Halloway,  82  Ky.  674 576 

Rasmussen  v.  Idaho,  181  U.  S.  198 125 

Ratcliffe   v.   Anderson,   31   Gratt.    105 268,   286,   427 

Rathbone  v.  Bradford,  1  Ala.  312 401,  433 

Ratterman  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  127  U.  S.  425 95,  131,  136 

Ratzky  v.  People,  29  N.  Y.  124 253,  251 

Rawley  v.  Hooker,  21  Ind.  144 415 

Rawson  v.   Spencer,  113  Mass.   40 312 

Ray  v.    Cannon,   2   Mart.    26 410 

Ray  v.   Natural   Gas   Co.,   138   Pa.  St.   592 271 

Ray  v.   Thompson,   43   Ala.   434 243 

Ray  County  v.  Van  Sycle,  96  U.  S.  6S4 324 

Raymond    v.    Raymond,    83   Fed.    723 151 

Raymond  v.  Thomas,  91  U.  S.  716 195,  473 

Rea  v.  Newport  etc.  R.  R,   Co.,  50  Fed.  20 103 

Read  v.  Frankfort  Bank,   23   Me.   318 337,   375,   399,   402 

Reading  R.  R,  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  15  Wall.  296 134,  449 

Reagan  v.  Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.,  154  U.  S.  392 689 

Reapers'   Bank  v.   Willard,   24   111.   433 357 

Reardon   v.   San   Francisco,    66   Cal.   492 655 

Reardon  v.  Searcy,  2  Bibb,  202 412 

Rechendorfer  v.  Fabe'r,  92  U.  S.  356 184 

Reciprocity  Bank,  In   re,   22   N.  Y.   9,   29  Barb.   369 377,   379 

R-ector  etc.  v.  County  of  Philadelphia,  24  How.  302 300,  34S 

Rcdall  v.   Bryan,   14  Md.   444 206 

Redfield   v.  Windom,   137   U.   S.   643 460 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  843 

Eedlon  v.  Barker,  4  Kan.  387 288 

Red  River  Br.  Co.  v.  Clarksville,  1  Sneed,  176 341 

Red  River  Valley  Bank  v.  Craig,  181  U.  S.  558 268,  401,  426 

Reed,  Ex  parte,   101  U.   S.   22 200,  410 

Reed  v.  Cosden,  CI.  &  H.  353 58 

Reed   v.   Mississippi,   69   Ark.   365 323 

Reed    v.    Swan,    133    Mo.    109 423 

Reed  v.  Taylor,  32  Iowa,   209 162,  164 

Rees  v.  Watertown,  19  Wall.   122 643 

Reese  v.   Stearns,   29   Cal.   273 91 

Reeside   v.   "Walker,    11    How.    290 460 

Reetz  v.  Michigan,  188  U.  S.  505 259,  713 

Reeves  v.   Corning,  51  Fed.   784 179,  186 

Reeves  v.  Texas  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  11  Tex.  Civ.  App.  514 121 

Regents  v.  McConnell,  5  Neb.  427 331 

Regents  v.  Williams,  9  Gill  &  J.  365 282,  283,  330,  333,  371,  442 

Reggel,   Ex  parte,  114  U.   S.  650 581,  582,  583,  587 

Reichart    v.    Felps,    6   Wall.    160 484,  646 

Reid  v.  Colorado,  187  U.  S.  137 125 

Reid  v.   Ham,   54  Minn.   305 588 

Reid  v.  People,   29   Colo.   333 125 

Reilley   v.    United    States,    106    Fed.    S96 109 

Reilly  v.  Lamar,   2  Cr.   356 207 

Reiman,  In  re,  7  Ben.  463 15S,  160,  161,  162,  217,  417 

Reinhart  v.  McDonald,   76  Fed.  405 137 

Reithmiller  v.  People,  44  Mich.  285 299 

Relyea  v.  Tomahawk  Paper  etc.  Co.,  102  Wis.  304 406,  409 

Renner  v.  Bennett,  21   Ohio  St.   431 208,   209,  210 

Representative   Election,   In   re,   17   R.   I.    820 47 

Republic  of  Honduras  v.  Soto,  112  N.  Y.  310 36 

Reside 's   Claim,   9   Opin.   Atty.    Gen.    200 66S 

Resolute,  The,  168  XL   S.  439 537 

Respublica   v.    Roberts,    1   Ball.    39 558 

Retzer  v.  Wood,  109  U.  S.  185 87 

Revel's    Case,    Taft,    312 49,    53 

Rexf ord  v.  Knight,  11  NY.  308 407 

Reynolds,  In  re,  8  R.  I.  489 162,  163,  165,  418 

Reynolds,  In  re,  6  Park.   Cr.  Rep.  276 198 

Reynolds   v.    Baldwin,    1   La.    Ann.    162 310 

Reynolds  v.  Bank  of  Indiana,  18  Ind.  467 90 

Reynolds  v.   Geary,   26   Conn.   183 574,  573 

Reynolds    v.    Hall,    2    HI.    35 388 

Reynolds    v.    Hamilton,    Tuft,     323 50 

Reynolds    v.    People,    1    Colo.     179 209 

Reynolds   v.    People,    83    111.    479 36,    38 

Reynolds  v.  State,  1   Ga.  228 228,  261 

Reynolds  v.  Stockton,  140  U.   S.   264 562 


844  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Key n olds  v.    Taylor,  43   Ala.   420 281 

Reynolds  v.  United  States,   98  U.   S.   154 619,   665,  666 

Rhea  v.  Newport  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  50  Fed.  20 103 

Rhode   Island   v.   Massachusetts,    12   Pet.    723 

29,  457,  482,  496,  499,  518,  526,  527,  542,  543,  545,  546,  677 

Rhodes  v.  Bell,  2  How.  404 207 

Rhodes   v.   Borden,   67   Cal.    8 162,   167,   417,   418 

Rhodes  v.  Iowa,   170  U.  S.  42G 96,   126,   128 

Rice  v.  Ames,  ISO  U.  S.  378 583 

Rice   v.   Houston,    16   Wall.    37 531 

Rice  v.  Railroad  Co.,   1  Black,   358 292 

Eice   v.   Smith,  72   Miss.   42 410 

Rich  v.  Flanders,  39  N.  H.  313 399,  401,  435,  436 

Richard's    Case,    CI.    &    H.    95 58,    59 

Richards  v.   Rock  Rapids,   31  Fed.   502 94 

Richardson,   In   re,   2   Story,   571 73,   74 

Richardson  v.  Akin,  87  111.  138 264,  345,  400,  401 

Richardson    v.    Brown,    6    Me.    355 300 

Richardson    v.    Cook,    37    Vt.    599 388 

Richardson  v.  Monson,  23  Conn.  94 309 

Richardson  v.  Thomas,  28  Ark.  389 093 

Richland   County  v.  Lawrence  County,  12  111.  1 314 

Richmond  v.  Lawrence,  12  111.  1 312 

Richmond   v.    Smith,   15   Wall.   429 673 

Richmond  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Louisiana  R.  R.  Co.,  13  How.  71 

334,341,397,657 

Richmond  etc.  R.  R.  v.  Richmond,  26  Gratt.  83 442 

Riddle   v.   Locks    and   Canals,    7   Mass.    169 370 

Ridlon   v.    Cressey,   65   Me.    128 428 

Riebling,   Ex  parte,   70   Fed.   311 500 

Rielly,  Ex  parte,  2  Abb.  Pr.,  N.  S.,  334 198 

Riggs   v.   Johnson    County,   6  Wall.    194 317,    328,   499,   512 

Riggs  v.  Martin,  5  Ark.  506 397,  398,  399 

Rigney  v.   Chicago,  102  U.  S.   72 655 

Riley   v.   Lee,    88   Ky.    603 620 

Rison  v.  Farr,  24  Ark.  168 611 

Ritchie  v.  Franklin   County,   22   Wall.   75 274 

Ritchie  v.  People,  155  HI.  98 572,  647,  644,  700,  712 

Ritter    v.    Kunkle,    39    N.    J.    L.    262 499 

Roach  v.  Gunter,  44  Ala.  209 386,  388 

Robards   v.  Brown,   40   Ark.   426 415,   422,   425 

Robb  v.  Connolly,  111  U.  S.  639 507,  513,  588 

Robbins  v.  Shelby  County  Taxing  Dist.,  120  U.  S.  492 

101,104,105,118,130,42 

Robert   v.   Atherton,   60   Vt.   565 418 

Robert    v.    Coco,    25   La.    Ann.    199 397 

Robert   v.   Sadler,   104  N.  T.   232 655 

Robert   Fulton,   The,   1   Paine,   620 537 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  84:5 

Roberts'   Case,   Eep.   85,   56th   Cong.,   1st   Sess 41,   60,   63 

Roberts   v.    Cocke,    28    Gratt.    215 390 

Roberts  v.  Hill,  23  Blatchf.   315,  24  Fed.   573 158 

Roberts  v.   Missouri   etc.   R.   R.,   43   Kan.   108 283 

Roberts  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  R.  Co.,  158  U.  S.  22 519 

Roberts  v.  Reilly,  116  IT.  S.  97 579,  580,  5S2,  583,  585,  587,  588 

Roberts  v.   Skolfielcl,   S   Am.   Law  Reg.   156 539 

Roberts  v.  Washbourne,  10  Minn.   33 359 

Robertson  v.  Baldwin,  165  U.  S.  281 79,  497,  517,  607,  640 

Robertson  v.   Cease,  97  U.   S.   648 42,  529,   699 

Robertson    v.    Land    Commissioner,    44    Mich.    278 288 

Robertson    v.    Pickrell,    109    U.    S.    611 564,    567,    568 

Robertson  v.   Van   Cleave,   129   Ind.   217 394 

Robinson 's   Case,    131   Mass.    377 706 

Robinson,    Ex   parte,    6   McLean,   355 490 

Robinson,  Ex  parte,  12  Nev.  263 138,  140,  578 

Robinson,   In    re,    2    Biss,    309 179,    183 

Robinson,   In   re,    29    Neb.    135 588 

Robinson   v.  Campbell,  3  Wheat.   212 287,  522,  523 

Robinson  v.  Flanders,  29  Ind.  10 587,  586 

Robinson   v.   Gardiner,   18   Gratt.   509 380 

Robinson   v.   House,   13   Wis.   341 280,   424 

Robinson   v.  Magee,   9   Cal.   81 282,   327,   385,   386 

Robinson  v.   Oceanic  Steam  Nav.   Co.,  112  N.  Y.  315 574,  576 

Robinson   v.   Peyton,   4   Tex.   276 568 

Robinson  v.  State,  84  Ind.  452 260 

Roby    v.    Boswell,    23    Ga.    51 395 

Roby  v.  Chicago,  34  111.  447 435 

Roby   v.    Smith,    131    Ind.    342 707 

Roche   v.    Washington,    19    Ind.    53 151 

Rochester   v.   West,   164  N.   Y.   510 723 

Rockland  Water  Co.  v.  Water  Co.,  80  Me.  563 341 

Rockwell  v.   Hubbell,   2   Doug.    (Mich.)    203 410 

Rodgers  v.  Adriatic  Ins.  Co.,   148  N.  Y.   39 565 

Rodgers  v.   McCoy,   6   Dak.   238 140 

Rodriguez,  In   re,   81  Fed.   350 154 

Roff  v.  Barney,  168  U.  S.  221 148,  4S3 

Rogers  v.   Burlington,   3   Wall.   665 331 

Roland   etc.   Ry.   v.   Baltimore,   77    Md.   3S1 344 

Roller  Mill   Patent,   156   II.  S.   269 186 

Rolston  v.  Missouri  Fund  Comn:rs.,  120  U.  S.  411 527 

Romaine,  In  re,  23  Cal.  585 5S6,  609,  610 

Roosevelt   v.   Cebra,  17  Johns.   108 167,  417 

Root   v.   McGrew,    3   Kan.    215 412 

Ropes  v.  Church,   8  Blatchf.   304 613 

Rose    v.    Estudillo,    39    Cal.    270 326,    329 

Rose  v.  Himely,  4  Cr.  441 494,  502 

Rose  v.   Northwest   Ins.    Co.,   67   Fed.   439 562 


84.6  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Rose   v.   Rose,   104   Ky.   48 268 

Rosen  v.  United  States,  161  U.  S.  42 175 

Rosenberger   v.    Weeks,    67    Tex.    5S5 94 

Rosenblatt,   Ex   parte,   51    Cal.   285 586 

Rosenblatt,   Ex  parte,   19  Nev.   439 141 

Rosenheim    v.    Morrow,    37   Fla.    488 169,    418 

Rosenplanter  v.  Provident  Sav.  etc.  Soc.,  96  Fed.  727 386 

Rosier  v.   Fagan,  46   111.   404 432 

Rosier   v.   Hales,    10   Iowa,   470 415,   425 

Ross'    Case,   2   Pick.   165 255 

Ross,  In  re,   140  U.   S.  480 478,  482 

Ross   v.    Worthing  ton,    11    Minn.    438 392 

Rosser,    In    re,    96    Fed.    308 640 

Roth   v.    State,    51    Ohio    St.    209 129 

Roundtree   v.   Baker,   52   111.    241 693 

Rouse   v.   Donovan,   104   Mich.   234 643 

Rowan    v.    Holcomb,    16    Ohio,    463 160 

Rowan    v.    State,    30    Wis.    129 642 

Rowe  v.  Page,  54  N.   H.   190 163,   165 

Rowland  v.   State,   12   Tex.   App.   418 299 

Roxbury  v.  Railroad  Co.,  6   Cush.  424 381 

Royall  v.   Virginia,   116   U.    S.    578 305 

Royer   v.    Coupe,    146   U.   S.    531 186 

Rozelle,   In    re,    57    Fed.    155 143 

Rubber  Tip  Pencil  Co.  v.  Howard,  20  Wall.  507 184 

Rubideaux    v.    Vallie,    12    Kan.    2S 148 

Rubotham   v.  McClure,  4  Blaekf.  505 82,   84,  85 

Ruder  v.  Whitfield,  1   Bart.  204 40 

Rudolph,  In  re,  6  Saw.  295,  2  Fed.  65 138,  141,  444 

Ruggles  v.  Illinois,  108  U.  S.  534 114,  340,  363,  365,  366,  719 

Ruggles   v.   People,   91   111.   256 338 

Ruggles  v.  Simonton,  3  Biss.  329 188 

Rule   of   Court,   In   re,   3   Woods,   502 626 

Rump   v.    Commonwealth,    3    Pa.    475 156 

Rundle  v.   Canal   Co.,  14  How.   89 298 

Bundle  v.  Delaware  etc.  Canal,  1  Wall.  Jr.  291 331,  341 

Runkle   v.  United   States,   122   U.   S.   557 460 

Rush  v.  Newman,  58  Fed.  160 673 

Rushville    v.    Gas    Co.,    132    Ind.    575 719 

Rushworth  v.  Judges,  58  N.  J.  L.   98 1SS,  497 

Russell's   Case,  7   Ct.   of   CI.    227 659 

Russell  v.   Allen,   107  U.   S.   171 207 

Russell    v.    Cheatham,    16    Miss.    703 160 

Russell  v.  LiOW-th,  21  Minn.   167 593 

Russell  v.  New  York,  2  Den.  461 82 

Ruth,   In   re,    1    Bank.    Reg.    Supp.    154 159 

Rutland  v.   Copes,   15   Rich.   84 270,   437 

Rutledge  v.  Fogg,  3  Cold.  554 473 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  847 

Ryan   v.   People,    21    Colo.    122 607 

Ryan    v.    Thomas,    4    Wall.    603 522 

Ryan    v.    Wessels,    15    Iowa.    145 , 428 

Ryer  v.  Odd  Fellows  etc.  Assn.,  157   Mass.   373 144 

Sacio  v.   De  Graff,   1  Cow.  358 166 

Saekett  v.  Andros,  5  Hill,  327 160 

Sage   v.   Dillard,   15  B.   Mon.   340 371,   3S0 

Sage  v.   St.  Paul  etc.   Ry.  Co.,  47  Fed.  4 498 

Sagendorph   v.   Hughes,    95   Fed.    479 185 

Sah    Quah,    In    re,    31    Fed.    327 571 

Sailley  v.   Smith,    11    Johns.   500 625 

St.   Albans   v.    Car    Co.,   57    Vt.    85 82 

St.  Anthony  Falls  etc.  Co.  v.  St.  Paul  Water  Conimrs.,  1G8  U.  S. 

359 98 

St.  Clair  v.  Cox,  106  U.  S.  356 143,  577,  684 

St.  Clair  County  v.  Interstate  etc.  Co.,  109  Fed.  741 129,  144 

St.  John  'a  College  v.   State,   15   Md.   330 291 

St.    Joseph    v.    Levin,    12    Mo.    588 717 

St.  Joseph  v.  Hannibal   etc.  Ry.   Co.,   39   Mo.   476 279 

St.  Joseph  etc.  B.  R.  v.  Steele,  167  U.  S.  663 530 

St.    Joseph    Township    v.    Rogers,    16   Wall.    663 274 

St.  Lawrence,  The,  1  Black,  526 534,  536,  540,  541 

St.    Louis    v.    Boffinger,    19    Mo.    3 125 

St.  Louis  v.   Consolidated   Coal   Co.,   158   Mo.   342 144 

St.   Louis  v.   Gaslight   Co.,  5   Mo.   App.   513 310 

St.   Louis  v.   Bicheson,   76  Mo.   470 697 

St.    Louis   v.    Russell,    9    Mo.    507 311 

St.  Louis  v.  St.  Louis  R.  R.  Co.,  89  Mo.  44 721 

St.  Louis  v.   Schulenburg  etc.   Co.,   13   Mo.   App.   60 452,  455 

St.    Louis    v.    Sternberg,    69    Mo.    289 297 

St.  Louis  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  148  U.  S.  97 80,  323,  334 

St.  Louis  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  39  Fed.  60 107 

St.  Louis  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  63  Fed.  46 284,  324 

St.  Louis  etc.  By.   Co.  v.  Alexander,  49  Ark.   194 284 

St.  Louis  etc.  R.  R,   Co.  v.   Gill,  156  U.   S.   549 720 

St.  Louis  etc.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Gill.  54  Ark.  101 367,  379 

St.   Louis    etc.   Ry.    v.   Harbine,    2    Mo.    App.    139 (345 

St.  Louis  etc.  R.  E.  v.  James,   161  U.  S.  555 530 

St.  Louis  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Loftin,  30  Ark.  693 349,  354 

St.  Louis  etc.  Ey.  Co.  v.  Mathews,  165  U.  S.  25 698 

St.  Louis  etc.  Ey.  v.  Paul,  64  Ark.  S7 337 

St.  Louis  etc.  Ey.  Co.  v.  Vickers,  122  U.  S.  363 511 

St.  Louis  Consolidated  Coal  Co.  v.  Illinois,  185  U.  S.  207 

442,    463,  721 

St.  Luke 's  Hospital  v.  Barclay,  3  Blatchf.  259 544 

St.  Paul  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Parcher,  14  Minn.  297 351 

St.  Paul  etc.  E.  E.  v.  St.  Paul,  21  Minn.  526 350 


848  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

St.  Paul  Gaslight  Co.  v.  St.  Paul,  181  IT.  S.  148 269,  281,  324,  327 

St.  Vincent's  College  v.  Shaefer,  104  Mo.  261 349 

Sala  v.  New  Orleans,  2  Woods,  194 283,  288,  318 

Salem  v.  Maynes,  123  Mass.   372 725 

Salem  etc.  Co.  v.  Lynne,  18  Conn.  457 362 

Salentine  v.   Fink,   8   Biss.   503 161 

Salt   Co.  v.  East  Saginaw,   13  Wall.   377 291,   299,   301,  349 

Salters  v.  Tobias,  3  Paige  Ch.  244 166,  417 

Samuel  v.  People,  164  111.  379 641 

Samperyac  v.  United  States,  7  Pet.   222 430 

Samples  v.  Bank,   1   Woods,   523 406 

Sanborn,  In  re,  148  U.  S.  224 499 

Sanborn   v.   Carlton,  15   Gray,  402 63 

Sanborn  v.  Perry,  86  Wis.  366 561 

Sanders  v.  Hillsborough  Ins.  Co.,  44  N.  H.  328 346,  434 

San  Diego  Water  Co.  v.  San  Diego,  118  Cal.  556 720 

Sands  v.  Manistee  Eiver  Imp.  Co.,  123  U.  S.  296 

103,    112,    455,    593,  595 

Sandusky  City  Bank  v.  Wilbor,  7  Ohio  St.  4S1 279,  349 

Sanf ord   v.  Nichols,   13   Mass.   286 625,  626 

Sanford   v.  Poe,   69   Fed.   546 714 

San  Francisco  v.  Spring  Valley  W.  W.,  48  Cal.  520 332 

San  Francisco  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Dinwiddie,  8  Saw.  312,  13  Fed.  789 

646,  715 

Sang  Lung  v.  Jackson,  8  Fed.  505 98 

San  Joaquin  etc.  Co.  v.  Stanislaus  County,  113  Fed.  930 377 

San  Mateo  v.  Southern  Pacific  E.  E.  Co.,  8  Saw.  238 628,  646,  697 

Santa  Ana  v.  Harlin,  99  Cal.  542 661 

Santa  Ana  Water  Co.  v.  San  Buenaventura,  65  Fed.  328 275,  337 

Santa  Anna's  Asylum  v.  New  Orleans,  105  U.  S.  362 353 

Santa  Clara  County  v.  Southern  Pacific  Co.,  118  U.  S.  396 728 

Santissima  Trinidad,  The,   7  Wheat.   137 283,  462,  494,  502 

Santissima  Trinidad,  The,  1  Brock.  497 199 

Santo  v.  State,  2  Iowa,  165 139 

Sapphire,    The,    11    Wall.    168 484 

Sarah  Jane,   The,   1  Low.   203 535 

Sargent  v.  Wilder,  71  Me.  383 290 

Satterlee  v.  Matthewson,  2  Pet.  413 

78,  263,  264,  273,  391,  392,  393,  430,  612,  683 

Satterthwaite  v.  Ambercrombie,  23  Blatchf.  309,  24  Fed.  544 167 

Saunders  v.  Wilson,  19  Tex.  196 295 

Savannah  v.  Steamboat  Co.,  Charlt.   (Ga.)    34G 292 

Savin  v.  Bond,  57  Md.  28 56G 

Savings  Bank  v.   Allen,   28   Conn.   97 394 

Savings  Bank  v.  Bates,  8   Conn.   505 394 

Savings  Instn.  v.  Maken,  23  Me.  360 .' 337 

Savory  v.  Caroline.  20  Ala.  19 222 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  849 

Savoye  v.  Marsh,  10  Met.   595 168 

Sawyer,  In  re,  124  U.  S.  219 229,  257,  627,  641,  665 

Sawyer   v.    Concordia,    12    Fed.    754 278 

Sawyer  v.  Davis,  136  Mass.  239 276 

Sawyer  v.  Vilas,  19  Vt.  47 285 

Sayre  v.  Phillips,  148  Pa.  St.  482 139,  140 

Scaine  v.  Belleville,  39  N.  J.  10 397 

Scales  v.  State,  4  Ark.  485 620 

Scharpf  v.  Schmidt,  172  111.  262 520 

Scheazle,  In  re,  1  Wood.  &  M.  66 506 

Sensible  v.  Bachs,  41  Ala.  423 434 

Schenck  v.  Blair,  Eep.  110,  1st  Sess.,  38  Cong 70 

Schenk  v.  Jeffersonville,  152  Ind.  217 274 

Schenck  v.  Peay,  21  Fed.  Cas.   682 219 

Schenley  v.  Commonwealth,  36  Pa.  St.  29 399 

Schoenberger,  In  re,  21  Fed.  Cas.  1335 158 

Scholey  v.  Reed,  23  Wall.   347 45,   87,  232 

Schollenberger  v.  Brinton,  52  Pa.  St.  9 77,  89,  90,  171,  21 S 

Schollenberger  v.  Pennsylvania,  171  U.  S.   24 105,  123,  126,  448 

Scholtz,  In  re,  106  Fed.   834 164 

Schoonmaker  v.  Gilmore,  102  U.  S.  119 541 

Schrader,  Ex  parte,  33  Cal.  279 118,  439 

Schuchardt  v.  Babbidge,  19  How.   240 538 

Schumacher  v.   Schwencke,   26  Fed.   818 178,  181 

Schuster  v.   Weiss,   114   Mo.   174 390 

Schwab  v.  Berggren,   143  U.   S.   450 710 

Schwartz,  Ex  parte,  2  Tex.  App.  74 675 

Schwartz   v.   Drinkwater,   70   Me.   410 166,  417 

Scobey  v.  Gibson,  71  Md.  572 413,  423,  424 

Scotland  County  v.  Thomas,  94  U.  S.  688 323 

Scotland  County  Court  v.  United  States,  140  U.  S.  47 328 

Scott    v.    Bilgerry,    40    Miss.    119 473,  669 

Scott   v.  Donald,   165  U.   S.   99 123,  127 

Scott   v.   Duke,  3   La.   Ann.   253 437 

Scott   v.   Jones,    5   How.    377 528,   547,   603,  604 

Scott  v.  McNeal,  154  U.  S.  46 562,  642,  697 

Scott   v.   Neely,   140   U.   S.   109 670 

Scott  v.  Sandford.     See  Dred  Scott  v.  Sandford. 

Scott  v.  Smart,  1  Mich.   295 229,  273,  433 

Scott  v.  State,  6  Tex.  Civ.  App.  348 4S0 

Scott  v.  Strobach,  49  Ala.  488 153 

Scott  v.   Toledo,   36  Fed.   285 ." 650,  708 

Scott  v.  United  States,  1  Wyo.  40 211 

Scott  v.  Wilson,  3  N.  H.  321 Ill,  295 

Scranton  v.  Wheeler,  179  U.   S.   162 100 

Scranton   v.   Wheeler,   57   Fed.    S10 97 

Scranton  Gas  Co.  v.  Northern  C.  &  I.  Co.,  192  Pa.  St.  80 657 

Notes  on  Constitution — 54 


850  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Scruggs    v.   Huntsville,    45   Ala.    220 241 

Scully  v.  Kirkpatriek,  79  Pa.  St.  324 1*35 

Seabury  v.  Field,  1  McCall,  1 597 

Seale  v.  Mitchell,  5  CaL  401 422 

Seamon  v.  Northwestern  Mut.  Life  Ins.  Co.,  86  Fed.  499 487 

Searcey  v.  Stubbs,  12  Ga.  437 337,  401 

Searight  v.  Stokes,  3  How.  151 86,  175,  176,  282 

Searl  v.  School  Dist.  Lake  County,  133  TJ.  S.  562 651,  660 

Sears  v.  Warren  County,  36  Ind.  267 140 

Sears  v.  Wills,  1  Black,  112 536,  538 

Seat  of  Government,  In  re,  1  Wash.  Ter.  135 601 

Seat  on  v.  Norfolk  etc.  E.  E,,  111  N.  C.  284 655 

Seattle  v.  Smyth,  22  Wash.  237 712 

Seattle  Coal  Co.  v.  Thomas,  57  Cal.  197 164 

Sebatier  v.  Creditors,  6  Mart.,  N.  S.,  585 428 

Sebring  v.  Messereau,  9  Cow.  346 417 

Secombe  v.  Eailroad  Co.,  23  Wall.  118 652,  653 

Second  Nat.  Bank  v.  Caldwell,  13  Fed.  433 85 

Second  etc.  Bank  v.  Schronck,  97  Wis.  262 391 

Secretary  v.  McGarrahan,  9  Wall.  312 460 

Seeley  v.  Bridgeport,  53  Conn.  1.  . 669 

Seevers  v.  Clement,  28  Md.  434 239,  456 

Segar's  Case,  2  Bart.  810 45 

Seibert  v.  Lewis,  122  U.  S.  294 385 

Selma  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  Ex  parte,  45  Ala.  728 611 

Selsby  v.  Eedlon,  19  Wis.  17 404 

Semmes  v.  United  States,  91  U.  S.  21 47S 

Semple  v.  Hager,  4  Wall.  433 533 

Seneca,  The,  Gilp,  28 534 

Senior,  Ex  parte,  37  Fla.  17 639 

Sequestration  Cases,  30  Tex.  688 240,  242,  244,  413,  685 

Sere  v.  Pilot,  6  Cr.  336 194,  594,  599 

Sessinghaus  v.  Frost,  2  Ells.  387 57 

Sessions  v.  Eomadka,  145  U.  S.  45 186 

Sevier 's   Case,   Taf t,   7 51 

Seward  v.  Beach,  29  Barb.  239 731 

Sewing  Machine  Cos.,  In  re,  18  Wall.  577 1S7,  528,  529,  530 

Seymour  v.  Hartford,  21  Conn.  481 301 

Seymour  v.  Osborne,  11  Wall.  549 184,  185 

Shanks  v.  Dupont,  3  Pet.  246 570,  701 

Shopleigh  v.  San  Angelo,  167  U.  S.  657 372 

Sharp  v.  Contra  Costa  County,  34  Cal.  284 306 

Sharpless  v.  Philadelphia,  21  Pa.  St,  147 273 

Shaumburg,  Ex  parte,  21  Fed.  Cas.  654 4S6,  487 

Shaver  v.  State,  10  Ark.  259 439 

Shaw  v.  Cooper,  7  Pet.  319 17S 

Shaw  v.  McCandless,  36  Miss.  296 106 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  851 

Shaw  v.  Quincy  Min.   Co.,  145  IT.   S.  451 530 

Shears  v.  Solhinger,  10  Abb.  Pr.,  N.  S.,  287 165 

Sheehan  v.  Good  Samaritan  Hosp.,  50  Mo.  155 350 

Sheehy  v.  Kansas  City  Ey.  Co.,  94  Mo.  574 655 

Sheets  v.  Peabody,  7  Blackf.  614 425 

Sheffield,  In  re,  64  Fed.  835 86,  179 

Sheffield  v.  Parsons,  3  Stew.  &  P.  302 447,  451,  452,  455 

Sheffield  Furnace  Co.  v.  Whiterow,  149  U.  S.  574 523 

Sheldon  v.  Sill,  8  How.  448 187,  506 

Shelor  v.  Mason,  2  Rich.,  N.  S.,  233 412 

Shelton  v.  Johnson,  4  Sneed,  672 561,  567 

Shelton  v.  Marshall,  16  Tex.  351 271 

Shelton  v.  Tiffin,  6  How.  184 529 

Shelton   v.  Wade,   14   Tex.   52 * 167 

Shepardson's   Appeal,   36   Conn.   23 164 

Shepherd  v.  Grimmett,  2  Idaho,  1129 252,  258,  259,  264 

Shepherd  v.  People,  25  N".  Y.  406 228,  253,  256 

Shepherd  v.  Taylor,  5  Pet.  711 537,  539 

Shepperd  v.  Sumpter  County  Commrs.,  59  Ga.  535 143 

Sherbourne  v.  De  Cordova,  24  How.  423 522 

Sheriff  v.  Lowndes,  16  Md.  357 330 

Sherlock  v.  Ailing,  93  U.  S.  104 103,  104,  113,  117 

Sherman,  Matter  of,  153  N.  Y.  4 93 

Sherman  v.  Bingham,  1  Low.  575 161 

Sherman  v.  Smith,  1  Black,  592 345,  375,  377,  379 

Shiel  v.  Thayer,  1  Bart.  349 55 

Shields'  Case,  Taft,  138 53 

Shields'  Case,  Taft,  187 49 

Shields  v.  Land  Co.,  94  Tenn.  148 393 

Shields  v.  Ohio,  95  U.  S.  323 364,  376,  377 

Shields  v.  Schiff,  124  U.  S.  356 559 

Shields  v.  State,  26  Ohio  St.  86 367,  383 

Shields  v.  Thomas,  18  How.  353 669,  670 

Shiner  v.  Jacobs,   62  Iowa,   394 291 

Shipman,  In  re,  2  Hughes,  228 409 

Shipman,  In  re,  14  Bank.  Reg.  570 150 

Shipping  Commissioners,  In  re,  13  Blatchf.  346 490 

Shiveley  v.  Bowlby,  152  U.  S.  15 129,  595,  598 

Short  v.  State,  80  Md.  392 702 

Shoemaker  v.  United  States,  147  U.  S.  301 205,  487,  651,  652,  653 

Shorter,  In  re,  22  Fed.  Cas.  19 226 

Shorter  v.  Cobb,  39  Ga.  285 201,  528 

Shorter  v.   Smith,  9   Ga.   524 341,   360 

Shortridge  v.  Macon,  Chase,  136 241,  242 

Shoshone  Mining  Co.  v.  Rutter,  177  U.  S.  507 523 

Shortwell  v.  Moore,  45  Ohio  St.  640 92 

Shreverjort  v.  Cole,  129  U.  S.  42 33,  326 


852  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Shryoek  v.  Bashore,  82  Pa.  St.  159 165 

Shurtleff  v.  United  States,  189  U.  S.  311 486 

Shute  v.  Davis,  Pet.  C.  C.  431 503 

Sidway  v.   Lawson,   58   Ark.   117 392 

Siebold,  Ex  parte,  100  U.  S.  390 55,  56,  155 

Sievers,  In  re,  91  Fed.  368 164 

Silver  Bow  County  v.  Davis,  6  Mont.  316 94 

Silver  Lake  Bank  v.  Harding,  15  Ohio,  545 565 

Silverman,  In  re,  1  Saw.  410,  2  Abb.  U.  S.    243 159,  160 

Sim's  Case,  7  Cush.  301 591,  610 

Simmons  v.  Hanover,  40  Mass.  180 400 

Simmons  v.  Saul,  138  U.  S.  448 562,  565 

Simmons  v.  State,  12  Mo.  268 297 

Simmons  v.  Van  Dyke,  138  Ind.  380 589 

Simmons'  Hardware  Co.  v.  McGuire,  39  La.  Ann.  848 141 

Simms  v.  Simms,  175  U.  S.  168 599 

Simms  v.  Stanton,  75  Fed.  10 181 

Simon  v.  Craft,  182  IT.  S.  426 712 

Simon  v.  House,  46  Fed.  319 505 

Simpson  v.  City  Savings  Bank,  56  N.  H.  469 164,  165,  275,  358 

Sinclair  v.  State,   69  N.   C.   47 140,  441 

Singer  Mfg.  Co.  v.  MeCollock,  24  Fed.   669 422 

Singer  Mfg.   Co.   v.   Wright,   33   Fed.   121 132 

Singleton   v.   State,   38   Fla.   300 476,   480 

Sinking  Fund  Cases,  99  U.  S.  718 38,  377,  381 

Sinnot    v.    Davenport,    22    How.    242 124,681 

Sioux  City  St.  Ey.  v.  Sioux  City,  13S  U.  S.  108 324,  370,  373 

Siren,   The,   13   Wall.   393 196 

Sitton  v.  Dubois,  14  Wash.  624 426 

Sizemore  v.  State,  3  Head,  26 174 

Skeen  v.  Monkheimer,  21  Ind.   1 474 

Skinner  v.  Holt,  9  S.  Dak.  427 389,  396,  410 

Slaughter  v.   Culpepper,   35  Ga.   26 435,  437 

Slaughter-House  Cases,  16  Wall.  62 118,  124,  438, 

439,  443,  571,  572,  573,  651,  679,  692,  698,  699,  701,  702,  705,  729 

Slawson  v.  Grand  St.  B.  E.  Co.,  107  U.  S.  655 183 

Sleeper   v.   Eice,   1  Bart.   472 59 

Sloan  v.  Pacific  E.  E.,  61  Mo.  24 344,  364,  366   369,  442 

Sloane  v.  Chiniquy,  22  Fed.   213 420 

Slocum  v.  Mayberry,   2   Wheat.   1 , 510 

Smead  v.  Indianapolis  etc.  Ey.  Co.,  11  Ind.  104 370 

Smith's    Case,    1    Bart.    107 60 

Smith's   Case,   1   Hall    L.   J.   459 63 

Smith's    Case,    Taft,    4 51 

Smith,  Ex  parte,  22  Fed.   Cas.   380 155,  160 

Smith,   Ex   parte,   5   Cow.   273 511 

Smith,   Ex  parte,  3  McLean,  121 586 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  853 

Smith,  Ex  parte,  10  Wend.  449 663 

Smith,  In  re,  2  Woods,  460 160,  263 

Smith   v.   Adams,   130  U.   S.   174 520 

Smith  v.  Alabama,  124  U.  S.  474 98,  102,  120,  144 

Smith    v.   Appleton,    19    Wis.    468 327,    328,  329 

Smith   v.   Bivens,   56   Fed.   355 627 

Smith  v.  Brazleton,  1  Heisk.   67 243 

Smith  v.  Brown,  2  Bart.   395 41,     60 

Smith  v.  Bryan,  34  111.  264 433 

Smith  v.   Callaghan,  6  Iowa,  555 273,  274 

Smith    v.    Cleveland,    17    Wis.    556 280,  385 

Smith    v.    Gardner,   4   Bosw.    54 168 

Smith   v.   Harrison,   33   Ala.   106 285 

Smith  v.  Huckabee,  53  Ala.  195 383 

Smith    v.    Jackson,    Bowell,    21 615 

Smith   v.   Jackson,   1   Paine,   453 503,    504,  506 

Smith  v.  Lake  Shore  etc.  Ey.  Co.,     114  Mich.  462 364 

Smith    v.    Lathrop,    44   Pa.    St.    330 239,  456 

Smith   v.   Lyon,    133    U.    S.    316 529 

Smith   v.   Mclver,   9    Wheat.    535 512 

Smith    v.    Marston,    5    Tex.    432 116 

Smith  v.  Maryland,  18  How.  73 

118,  129,   130,  520,  536,  540,   607,  624,   625,   722,  723 

Smith  v.  Mead,  3  Conn.  256 ' 166,  168,  417' 

Smith  v.  Merchand,  7  Serg.  &  E.  260 280,  432 

Smith  v.  Milwaukee  Bldrs.  Exch.,  91  Wis.  360 724 

Smith  v.  Moody,  26  Ind.  305 153,  155,  573,  699 

Smith   v.   Morrison,   39   Mass.   430 407 

Smith    v.    Morse,    2    Cal.    524 397,411 

Smith  v.  New  Orleans,  23  La.  Ann.  5 246 

Smith   v.   Nichols,   21  Wall.   11& 184 

Smith   v.   Owen,   42   Mo.   508 252 

Smith  v.  Eeeves,  178  U.  S.  39 688 

Smith  v.  Smith,  2  Johns.  235 167 

Smith  v.  State,  162  U.  S.  592 730 

Smith  v.  State,   100   Tenn.   503 102,   117 

Smith   v.    Stewart,    55   Fed.   482 184 

Smith  v.   Tucker,   17   N.   J.   L.   S6 408 

Smith  v.  Union  Bank,  5  Pet.  527 288 

Smith  v.  United   States,  151  U.   S.  56 571,  699 

Smith  v.  United  States,  1  Wash.  Ter.  269 528 

Smith    v.    Webb,    11    Minn.    507 94 

Smith  v.  Whitman  Co.,  148  U.  S.  678 ]&5 

Smith  v.  Whitney,   116  U.   S.   118 199,   200,  470 

Smith  v.  Woolfolk,  119   U.   S.   149 561 

Smoot  v.  Kentucky  Cent.  E.   E.,  13  Fed.   337 697 

Snroot  v.   Lafferty,   3   Gilm.   8S3 415 


854  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Smyth   v.   Ames,   169  U.   S.   466 720,  728 

Sneed  v.  Ewing,  5  J.  J.  Marsh.  466 567 

Sneider  v.  Heidelburger,  45   Ala.   126 410 

Smell  v.  Chicago,  133  111.  440 341 

Snow,   In    re,   120   U.   S.   286 635 

Snow   v.    United   States,    18   Wall.    319 599,600 

Society  v.  Pawlet,   4  Pet.   509 403 

Society    v.    Wheeler,    2    Gall.    139 229,    265,  409 

Society   v.    New    Haven,    8    Wheat.    294 484,    533,613* 

Society  for   Savings  v.   Coite,   6   Wall.   604 92,  93,  334,  684 

Sohn    v.    Watterson,    17    Wall.    596 392,406 

Soon  Hing  v.  Crowley,  113   U.   S.   708 

441,  502,  524,  706,  717,  727,  728,  733 

Soule    v.    Chase,    39    N.   Y.    344 169,  170 

Souter   v.   Madison,   15   Wis.    30 326 

South  etc.  Ey.  v.  Alabama,  101  XL  S.  832 306 

South  etc.  Ey.   Co.  v.  Morris,   65  Ala.   193 721 

South  Bay  Meadow  Dam  Co.  v.  Gray,  30  Me.  547 346 

South   Bend  v.   Martin,   142   Ind.   46 138 

South    Cambria,    The,    27    Fed.    526 106 

South  Carolina  v.  Charleston,  4  Rich.   289 114,   133,  451 

South  Carolina  v.  Gaillard,  101  U.  S.  438 399 

South  Carolina  v.  Georgia,  93  U.  S.  10 95,  96,  97,  98,  113,  234 

South  Carolina  v.   Wesley,  155  U.   S.   544 688 

South  Covington  etc.  R.  E.  v.  Berry,  93  Ky.  49 649,  721 

Southern  etc.  Assn.  v.  Norman,  98  Ky.  304 143 

Southern  Bell  Tel.   Co.  v.  Francis,   109   Ala.   224 723 

Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Hood,  15  Rich.  66 135 

Southern  Pacific  Co.  v.  Denton,  146  U.  S.  207 

188,  1S9,  515,  529,  578 

Southern  Ey.   Co.  v.   Allison,   190  IT.  S.   326 530 

Southern  Ey.  v.   North   Carolina  By.,   81   Fed.   600 246,  689 

Southern  Steamship  Co.  v.  Port  Wardens,  6  Wall.  33 

99,   104,   117,  452,   455,  681 

Southwestern  E.  E.   Co.  v.  Paulk,  24  Ga.  356 346,  369 

Southwestern  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Wright,  116  IT.  S.  236 300,  348 

Southwest  Missouri  Light  Co.  v.  Joplin,  101  Fed.  23 269 

Southworth   v.    City,    24    La.    Ann.    312 316 

Spangler  v.   Green,   21   Colo.   505 396,  427 

Sparks   v.   Clapper,   30    Ind.    204 394,  430 

Sparrow  v.  Eailroad  Co.,  7  Ind.  369 395 

Spaulding  v.  Andover,  58  N.  H.  38 313 

Spaulding  v.   Mead,   CI.   &  H.   157 58 

Spaulding   v.   People,   172   111.   48 331 

Spears,  Ex  parte,  88  Cal.  643 581,  583,  588 

Specht  v.  Commonwealth,  8  Pa.  St.   312 439,  620 

Speer   v.    Commonwealth,    23    Gratt.    935 142 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  855 

Speer  v.  Directors,  50  Pa.   St.   150 198t 

vSpeneer   v.   Lapsley,  20   How.   264 672 

Spencer   v.   Merchant,   125   U.   S.   355 81 

Spencer,    In    re,    5    Saw.    199 480 

Spies  v.  Illinois,  123  U.  S.  166 607,  641 

Spinney,   Ex   parte,   10   Nev.   323 706 

Spokane  etc.   Co.  v.  McChesney,  1  Wash.   609 42G 

Spooner,   In   re,   104  Fed.   334 56 

Spooner  v.  McConnell,  1  McLean,   337 27,  282,  60G 

Sprague  v.  Fletcher,  69  Vt.  78 ?«"5 

Sprangler,    In    re,    11    Mich.    298 198,    202,  460 

Spratt   v.  Spratt,   4   Pet.   40S 153,  156 

Sprayberry   v.   Atlantic,   87   Ga.   125 283 

Spreckels  etc.  Co.  v.  McClain,  113  Fed,   214 232 

Sponger  v.  Foster,  2  Story,  387 167 

Springer  v.  United  States,  102  IT.  S.  594 45,  87,  219,  231,  232,  645 

Springfield  v.   Smith,   138   Mo.    655 341 

Springfield  Ey.  Co;  v.  Springfield,  85  Mo.  674 323 

Spring  Valley  Water  Co.  v.  Bartlett,  8  Saw.  589,  16  Fed.  642.353,  719 

Spring  Valley  W.  W.  v.  Board  of  Supervisors,  61  Cal.  5 379 

Spring  Valley  W.  W.  v.  San  Francisco,  82  Cal.  286 719 

Spring  Valley  W.  W.  v.   Schottler,  110  U.   S.  348 

325,   374,   375,   376,   377,   379,  719 

Springville  v.  Thomas,  166  U.  S.  70S 669 

Sprott  v.  Eeid,  3  G.  Greene,  489 404,  430 

Sprott  v.  United  States,  20   Wall.  464 242,   244,  685 

Sproule  v.  Fredericks,   69   Miss.   899 683 

Sprowl  v.  Lawrence,  33  Ala.  689 488 

Staats  v.  Hudson  Eiv.  E,  E,  Co.,  3  Keyes,  196 3S1 

Stacy  v.  La  Belle,  99   Wis.  520 148 

Stafford  v.  Lick,  7  Cal.  479 394 

Standard  etc.  Co.  v.  Attorney  General,  46  N.  J.  Eq.  270 100 

Standard  etc.  Co.  v.  Peters  etc.  Co.,  77  Fed.  645 185 

Standard  Oil  Co.  v.  Combs,  96  Ind.  184 448 

Standeford  v.  Wingate,   2   Duval,   445 287,  290 

Stanhilber  v.  Mutual  Mill  Ins.  Co.,  76  Wis.  291 577 

Stanley  v.  Schwalby,  16  U.  S.  272 526 

Stanley    v.    Stanley,    26    Me.    191 345 

Stanmire  v.  Taylor,  3  Jones  (N.  C),  207 283 

Stanton  v.  Lane,  Taf t,  205 69,     70 

Starkweather  v.  Hawes,   10  Miss.   125 404,  417 

Starr   v.   Hamilton,   Deady,   268 266,    267,286 

Starr  v.  Pease,  8  Conn.  546 266 

Starr  v.  Eobinson,  1  Chip.  257 388 

State,  Ex  parte,  52  Ala.   235 306,  665 

State   v.  Adams,  4.4  Mo.   570 258,   316,   370,  377 

State   v.   Ager,   83   Ala.   110 141 


856  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

State  v.  Ah   Chew,  16   Nev.   51 700,  730 

State  v.  Aiken,  42  S.  C.  248 625 

State  v.  Aldrich,   70  N.   H.   391 723 

State  v.  Allen,  2  Humph.  258 585 

State  v.  Alston,  94  Tenn.  681 : 232 

State  v.  Aslesen,   50   Minn.   5 722 

State  v.  Assessors,  43  N.  J.  L.  338 39S 

State  v.  Atkinson,  40  S.  C.  371 703 

State  v.  Auditor,  33  Miss.  287 431 

State  v.  Bank,   1   Spears,   502 331 

State  v.  Bank,  1  S.  C.  78 390 

State  v.  Bank  of  Smyrna,  2  Houst.  99 289,  299,  353 

State  v.  Bank  of  South  Carolina,  1  Kich.  63 358,  410 

State  v.  Bank  of  Tennessee,  3  Baxt.  395 306 

State  v.  Bank  of  Tennessee,  5     Baxt.   24 240 

State  v.  Baldwin,  45  Conn.  134 254 

State  v.  Baltimore  etc.  R.  R.,  12  Gill  &  J.  399 373 

State  v.  Baltimore  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  24  W.  Va.  783 121 

State  v.  Barker,  4  Kan.  324 307 

State  v.  Barnett,  3  Kan.  253 607,  628 

State  v.  Barringer,  Phill.   (N.  C.)  55 1 433 

State  v.  Bates,  22  Utah,  65 633 

State  v.  Beardsley,  108  Iowa,  405 298 

State  v.  Becht,  23  Minn.  413 642 

State  v.  Behimer,  20  Ohio  St.  572 635 

State  v.  Bell,  Phill.   (N.  C.)   81 84,  229,   230,  258 

State  v.  Benham,  7  Conn.  414 638 

State  v.  Bentley,  23  N.  J.  L.  540 354 

State  v.  Bermoudy,  36  Mo.   279 258 

State  v.  Bermudez,  12  La.  352 406 

State   v.   Bernheim,  19   Mont.   517 71 

State  v.  Betts,  24  N.  J.  L.  555 351 

estate  v.  Billings,  55  Minn.  467 711 

State  v.  Blackmo,  8  Blackf .   246 249 

State  v.  Blackwell,  65  Me.  588 145 

State  v.  Blevins,  134  Ala.   213 63b 

State  v.  Blundell,  24  N.  J.  L.  402 350 

State  v.  Board,  76  Wis.   207 593 

State  v.  Board  of  Assessors,  34  La.  Ann.  575 341 

State  v.  Board  of  Assessors,  46  La.  Ann.  146 146    277    448 

State  v.  Board  of  Liquidation,  40  La.  Ann.  398 303 

State  v.  Bond,  4  Jones   (N.   C),   10 253,   257,  259 

State  v.  Boswell,  104  Ind.  541 607,   628,  708 

State  v.  Bosworth,   13   Vt.   402 362 

State  v.  Bott,  31  La.  Ann.  663 298 

State  v.  Bowen,  8  S.  C.  400 464 

State  v.  Boyd,  36  Neb.  181 45 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  857 

State  v.  Boylss,  7  Blackf.  90 316 

State  v.  Bracco,  103  N.  C.  349 141 

State  v.  Bradley,  26  Fed.  289 625,  627,  708 

State  v.  Branin,  24  N.  J.  L.  484 350,  354 

State  v.  Bridges,  22  Wash.   64 265 

State   v.  Brown,   2   Or.   221 174 

State  v.  Browning,  52  Mo.  591 140 

State  v.  Brown  Mfg.  Co.,  18  B.  I.  20 336,  377,  381,  628 

State  v.  Bryee,   7   Ohio,  pt.   2,  83 271 

State  v.  Buchanan,  5  Har.  &  J.  317 511 

State   v.   Buchanan,    29   Wash.    602 732- 

State  v.  Buckley,  54  Ala.  616 270 

State  v.  Burke,  33  La.  Ann.  498 270,  285 

State   v.  Burns,   82   Md.   568 445 

State  v.  Butler,   79   Tenn.   493 326 

State  v.  Buzine,  4  Harr.   572 584,  585,  586 

State  v.  Buzzard,  4  Ark.   18 622 

State  v.  Cadigan,  73  Vt.  245 728,  733 

State  v.  Campbell,  53  Minn.  358 147 

State  v.  Capaeller,  6  Ohio  Dec.  702 279 

Stat©  v.  Cardozo,  8  Rich.   71 303,  304 

State  v.   Carew,   13  Bich.   511 413 

State   v.   Carr,   111   Ind.   337 331 

State  v.  Cathers,  25  Neb.  250 326 

State  v.  Central  Pac.  B.  E.  Co.,  21  Nev.  269 84 

State   v.   Chapel,   64   Minn.    130 723 

State  v.  Charleston,  4  Bich.   286 454 

State  v.  Charleston,  10  Bich.  240 235,  444,  445 

State  v.  Cheevers,  7  La.  Ann.  40 635 

State  v.  Chester,  39  S.  C.  316 65 

State  v.   Chicago  etc.   Ry.   Co.,  40   Minn.   267 96 

State  v.  Chicago  etc.  By.  Co.,  68  Minn.  3S1 121 

State  v.  Churchill,  48  Ark.  443 459 

State  v.  City  of  Newark,  39  N.  J.  L.  3S2 92 

State  v.   Clark,  60  Kan.  455 630 

State  v.  Clarksville  etc.  E.  R.,  2  Sneed,  92 363 

State  v.  Cleveland  Gaslight  Co.,  3  Ohio  C.  C.  254 338 

State  v.  Coal  Co.,  41  La.  Ann.  472 123 

State  v.  Cogshall,  65  N.  W.  2 315 

State  v.  Collector,  26  N.  J.  L.  519 350 

State  v.  Collector,  38  N.  J.  L.  270 350 

State   v.   Colsem,   130   Ind.   434 315 

State  v.  Commissioners,  37 '  N.  J.  L.  237 353,  376,  377,  378 

State  v.  Commissioners,  38  N.  J.  472 375 

State  v.   Conlon,   65   Conn.  478 32 

State  v.   Cooler,  30   S.   C.   105 2m 

State  v.  Coonan,  S2  Iowa,  401 127 


858  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

State  v.   Corbett,  57  Minn.   345 122 

State  v.   County  Court,  19   Ark.  367 283,  289 

State  v.  County  Treasurer,  4  Rich.  520 349 

State  v.  Cox,  3  Eng.  436 551 

State  v.   Crawford,  28  Fla.   441 53,  58 

State  v.  Crescent  Creamery  Co.,  83  Minn.  284 723 

State  v.  Curran,  12  Ark.  353 162,  331,  417 

State  v.  Cumberland  etc.  E.  R.  Co.,  40  Md.  48 133 

State  v.   Cunningham,  83  Wis.  155 79 

State  v.  Cutshall,  109  N.   C.  764 589 

State  v.  Cutshall,  110  N.  C  549 611 

State  v.  Dalton,  22  R.  I.  77 712,  718 

State   v.   Davis,   44   Mo.    131 287 

State  v.  Davis,  108  Mo.   666 626 

State  v.  Davis,  12  S.  C.  528 499 

State  v.  Delaware  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  30  N.  J.  L.  473 354 

State  v.  Delaware  etc.  R.  R,  Co.  31  N.  J.  L.  531 446 

State   v.   Delesdernier,   7   Tex.   99 341,  494 

State  v.  Demarest,  32   N.  J.  52S 198 

State  v.  Deschamp,  53   Ark.   493 127 

State  v.  Dews,  R.  M.  Charlt.  397 289,  290 

State  v.  Dimmick,  12  N.  H.  194 198 

State   v.   Duckworth,   5   Idaho,   642 123 

State   v.   Duffy,   7   Nev.    342 730 

State  v.  Duket,  90  Wis.  277 266,  286 

State  v.  Duncan,  7  Wash.   336 641 

State  v.  Dupaquier,  46  La.  Ann.  577 722 

State  v.   Edwards,  86  Me.   105 719 

State   v.   Egglesht,   41   Iowa,   474 637 

State   v.    Elder,   54   Me.    383 441 

State   v.   Elder,   65   Ind.   282 637 

State  v.   Emary,   68   Vt.   109 637 

State  v.  Emert,  103  Mo.  245 576 

State   v.    English,    14   Mont.    399 637 

State  v.  Evans,  33  W.  Va.  417 637 

State  v.  Fairlamb,  12  Mo.  137 569 

State  v.  Farley,  8  Blatchf .   229 479 

State  v.  Fellowes,   12  La.  Ann.   344 297 

State  v.  Fire  Creek  etc.  Co.,  33  W.  Va.  188 713 

State  v.  Flavell,  24  N.  J.  L.  370 349 

State   v.  Foreman,   8   Yerg.   256 149 

State  v.  Fosdick,  21  La.  Ann.  256 124,  440,  443 

State  v.  Fourcade,  45  La.  Ann.   717 722,  732 

State  v.  French,  109  N.  C.   722 138 

State  v.  Fry,  4  Mo.  172 266 

State   v.   Furbush,   72   Me.   493 14L 

State  v.  Fylpaa,  3  S.  Dak.  586 2S0 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  859 

State  v.   Gaillard,   9   Eep.    725 400 

State  v.   Garbraski,   111   Iowa,   496 729 

State  v.  Gardner,  58  Ohio  St.  599 252,  712,  717,  713 

State  v.   Garesche,   36   Mo.   256 228,  395 

State  v.   Gas  Co.,  34  Ohio   St.   572 719 

State   v.    Gatzweiller,   49   Mo.   18 252,  388 

State  v.  Georgia  etc.  Co.,  54  Ga.  423 349 

State  v.  Gibson,  36  Ind.  389 680,  704 

State  v.  Gleason,  56  Iowa,  203 636 

State   v.   Glenn,   7   Jones,   321 295 

State  v.  Goetz,  43  W.  Va.  495 126,  146 

State  v.  Goodwill,   33  W.  Va.   1S4 77,  713 

State  v.  Gorham,  115  N.  C.  727 138,  140,  142 

State  v.  Gorton,  32  Ind.  5    83,  680 

State   v.   Goss,   66  Minn.   293 223,  582 

State   v.   Goss,   73   Minn.   127 223,  584 

State  v.  Gozlay,  5  Ohio,  14 297 

State  v.  Graves,  19  Md.  534 31S 

State  v.  Gray,  4  Wis.  3S0 265 

State  v.  Guilbert,  56  Ohio  St.  575 642 

State   v.   Gurney,   37   Mo.   156 440 

State  v.  Haight,  25  X.  J.  40 350 

State  v.  Haight,  34  N.  J.  L.   130 92 

State  v.   Hall,   50   Ark.    28 636 

State   v.   Hall,   115   N.   C.   811 580,  587 

State  v.  Hamlin,  S6  Me.  49S 232 

State  v.  Hancock,  35  N.  J.  L.  537 350 

State  v.  Hannibal  &  St.  Joseph  E.  E.  Co.,  60  Mo.  143 352 

State  v.  Hannibal  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  37  Mo.  265 354 

State  v.   Harbourne,   70   Conn.   484 122 

State  v.   Harrington,   6S   Vt.   628 82 

State  v.  Harrub,  95  Ala.  176 100,  110,  112,  129,  706 

State  v.   Hatcher,   136   Mo.   641 636 

State  v.  Hawthorne,  9  Mo.  389 297 

State  v.  Hay,  126  N.  C.  999 725 

State  v.  Heath,  8  Mo.  App.   102 632 

State  v.  Heidenhain,  42  La.  Ann.  4S3 726 

State  v.  Heighland,  4  Mo.  3S8 251 

State  v.  Heineman,  80  Wis.  257 252,  732 

State  v.  Heyward,  3  Eich.  389 330,  442 

State  v.  Hickman,  9  Mont.  379 270 

State  v.  Hilbert,  72  Wis.  193 374 

State  v.  Hinman,  65  N.  H.  103 733 

State  v.  Hitchcock,  1  Kan.  178 601 

State   v.   Hoeflinger,    35   Wis.   400 153 

State  v.  Hood,  15  Eich.   187 354 

State  v.  Hord,  122  N.  C.  1092 726 


860  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

State  v.  Hoyt,  47  Conn.  532 259 

State  v.  Hudson,  23  N.  J.  206 359 

State  v.  Hufty,  11  La.  Ann.  316 52 1 

State  v.  Hunt,  129  N.  C.  686 117 

State  v.  Illinois  Cent.  E.  E.,  33  Fed.  774 284 

State  v.  Ingalls,  98  Iowa,  728 635 

State  v.  Insurance  Co.,  115  U.  S.  266 515 

State  v.  Jackson,   80   Mo.   175 704 

State  v.  Jackson,  31  N.  J.  189 198 

State  v.  Janesville  etc.  Ey.  Co.,  87  Wis.  72 724 

State  v.  Johnson,  12  Minn.  484 228,   253,  257 

State  v.  Jones,  1  Ired.  414 316 

State  v.  Jones,  21   Md.  438 406 

State  v.  Judge,  39  La.  Ann.  132 732 

State  v.  Judge,  7  Mo.  App.  524 128 

State  v.  Julow,  129  Mo.  163 642,  644,  650,  712 

State  v.  Keith,  63  N.  C.  140 253,  254 

State  v.  Kennedy,  19  La.   Ann.   426,  427 447 

State  v.  Kenney,  9  Mont.  395 236 

State  v.  Kent,  65  N.   C.   312 256 

State  v.  Kent,  5  N.  Dak.  516 641 

State  v.  Keokuk  etc.  E.  E.,  99  Mo.  41 364 

State  v.  Keyes,  8  Vt.  57 663 

State  v.  Kline,  23  Ark.   587 316 

State  v.  Knowles,  16  Fla.  616 331 

State  v.  Kolsem,  130  Ind.  434 315 

State  v.  Kalb,  50  Wis.  183 290 

State  v.  Laclede  Gas.  Co.,  102  Mo.  472 338 

State  v.  Lagarde,  60  Fed.  186 141 

State  v.  Lancaster,  63  N.  H.  267 576 

State  v.  Lancaster  County,  2  Neb.  214 322 

State  v.  Layton,  160  Mo.  474 717 

State  v.  Leester,  29  N.  J.  L.  541 352 

State  v.  Leidigh,  47  Neb.  131 582 

State  v.  Lillard,   78   Mo.   138 441 

State   v.    Littlefield,   70   Me.    452 635 

State   v.   Lockwood,   43   Wis.   403 179 

State  v.  Long,  95  N.  C.  582 142 

State  v.  Lord,  28  Or.  525 461 

State  v.  Love,  37  N.  J.  L.  60 351 

State  v.  McAdoo,  36  Mo.  450 258 

State  v.  McBride,  1  Eice,  400 176,  497,  511 

State  v.  McCann,  21  Ohio  St.  198 702 

State  v.  MeCauley,  15  Cal.  456 255 

State  v.   McDonald,   20   Minn.    136 253 

State  v.  Macdonald,  24  Minn.   59 153 

State   v.   McGinty,   41   Miss.    435 415,  4ig 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  861 

State  v.  McKenney,  18  Nev.   203 150 

State  v.  McO'Blenis,  21  Mo.  272   479,  666 

State  v.  McPeak,  31  Neb.  139 296 

State  v.  Maine  Central  E.  B.  Co.,  66  Me.  505 379 

State  v.  Manning,   14  Tex.   402 261 

State  v.  Mansfield,  23  N.  J.  L.  510 349 

State  v.  Manufacturing  Co.,  18  E.  I.  35 344 

State  v.  Matthews,  3  Jones  (N.  C),  451 336,  356 

State  v.  Mayor,  31  N.  J.  L.  575 384,  379 

State  v.  Medbury,  3  E.  I.  142 575 

State  v.   Meek,   112   Iowa,   388 289,  295 

State  v.  Miller,  55  Mo.   50 311 

State   v.   Mitchell,   97   Me.   66 733 

State  v.   Montgomery,   92   Me.   440 13S 

State  v.  Montgomery,  94  Me.  192 142,  145,  733 

State  v.  Montgomery  Light  Co.,  102  Ala.  594 370 

State  v.   Moor,  Walk.   134 633 

State  v.  Moore,  121  Mo.  514 . . .   738 

State  v.  Moore,  42  N.  J.  L.  228 228 

State  v.  Morris,  49  N.  J.  L.  222 27,  352 

State  v.  Moss,  69  Mo.  495 715 

State  v.  Navigation  Co.,  11  Mart.  309 600 

State  v.  Neal,  42  Mo.  119 252 

State  v.  Neff,  52  Ohio  St.  404 330 

State  v.  Nelson,  66  Minn.  166 722 

State  v.  Newark,  27  N.  J.  L.  185 350 

State  v.  Newell,  13  Mont.  305 521 

State  v.  New  Haven  etc.  E.  E.,  30  Conn.  290 353 

State  v.  New  Haven  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  43  Conn.  351 368,  373 

State  v.  New  Orleans,  27  La.  Ann.  521 725 

State  v.  New  Orleans,  34  La.  Ann.  1149 278 

State  v.  New  Orleans,  38  La.  Ann.  119 2S5,  286 

State  v.  New  Orleans  City  Ey.,  42  La.  Ann.  550 401 

State   v.   Newton,   59   Ind.   173 395 

State   v.   North,  27   Mo.   464 447 

State  v.  Northern  Cent.  E.  E.  Co.,  44  Md.  131 383 

State  v.  Northern  Pacific  Exp.  Co.,  58  Minn.  403 128 

State   v.   Norwell,   2   Yerg.    24 634 

State   v.   Noyes,   47   Me.    189 339,  364 

State  v.   Connor,   5   N.   Dak.   629 141 

State  v. .  Odell,  4  Blackf .  156 634 

State  v.  Omaha  etc.  Co.,  113  Iowa,  30 115 

State   v.  Osawakee  Township,   14  Kan.   420 80 

State    v.    Parish,   43    Wis.    395 63 1 

State  v.  Parsons,  124  Mo.  436 45 

State    v.    Patterson,    116    Mo.    515 582,588 

State  v.  Patterson,  53  N.  J.  L.  120 314 


SC2  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

State  v.  Paul,  5  R.  I.  1S5 229,  230,  258,  395,  441 

State  v.  Paysson,  47  La.  Ann.  1029 726 

State  v.  Peckham,  3  R.  I.  289   139 

State  v.  Peelle,  124  Ind.  520 488 

State  v.  People 's  etc.   Co.,  46  La.  Ann.  1031 309 

State  v.  Perry  County  Commrs.,  5  Ohio   St.  497 316 

State  v.  Petway,   2   Jones  Eq.   396 352,   354 

State  v.  Philadelphia  etc.  S.  S.  Co.,  45  Md.  378 82,  133,  350 

State   v.   Phipps,   50   Kan.   69 145,   515,   577 

State  v.  Pilsbury,   31  La.   Ann.   1 310 

State   v.   Pinckney,   10   Rich.   474 445,  448 

State   v.  Pinkerman,   63   Conn.   196 287 

State    v.   Pitman,    1    Brew.    32 174 

Stats  v.  Police  Jury,  34  La.  Ann.  95 278 

State  v.  Powers,  24  N.  J.  L.  400 349,  354 

State  v.  Prather,  19  Wash.  340 644 

State  v.  Pratt,  59  Vt.   590 140,  445 

State  v.  Pullman  Palace  Car  Co.,  11  Biss.  566,  16  Fed.  200 134 

State  v.  Railroad  Co.,  44  Md.  165 379 

State  v.   Randall,   2   Ark.   89 173,   174,   510,  511 

State  v.  Randolph,  1  Mo.  App.  IS 129 

State  v.  Randolph,  23  Or.  82 252,  717 

State  v.  Rash,  1  Houst.  Del.  Cr.  271 694 

State  v.  Ratts,  63  N.  C.  503 256 

State  v.  Reid,  1  Ala.  612 622 

State  v.  Reid,  115  N.  C.  741 738 

State  v.  Richards,    32    W.    Va.    353 140,  576 

State  v.  Richmond  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  73  N.  C.  527 296,  369 

State   v.   Richter,   37   Minn.   438 579 

State  v.  Rogers,   79  Mo.   291 92 

State  v.  Rosenbaum,  23  Ind.  App.  236 635 

State  v.  Russell,  8  Ohio  N.  P.  54,  10  Ohio  S.  &  C.  P.  Dec.  255.  .40,  53 

State  v.  Ryan,  13  Minn.  570 261 

State  v.  Ryhne,  80  N.  C.  183 411 

State  v.  St.  Louis  County  Court,  34  Mo.  546 314 

State  v.  San    Antonio,    2    Tread.    776 174 

State  v.  Saunders,  19  Kan.  130 102,  104,  128 

State  v.  Schleiman,    4   Harr.    577 585 

State  v.  Schlenker,    112    Iowa,    642 698 

State  v.  Schuman,  36  Or.  16 722 

State  v.  Scott,  9  Ark.  270 32 

State   v.   Scougal,   3   S.   Dak.   70 572 

S.tate  v.  Sears,  Phill.   (N.  C.)    146 241,  261 

State  v.  Sears,  29   Or.  508 422 

State  v.  Seavey,  22  Neb.  454 315 

State  v.  Sharpleigh,    27    Mo.    464 454 

State  v.  Sheriff,  48  Minn.  236 733 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  863 

State  v.  Simpson,    1    Bail.    378 479 

State  v.  Slevin,  16  Mo.  App.  541 433 

State  v.  Sluby,  2  Har.   &   J.   480 447 

State  v.  Smalls,  11  S.  C.  262 67 

State  v.  Smedes,  26  Miss.  47 291) 

State  v.   Smith,  53  Ark.  24 636 

State  v.  Smith,  62  Minn.   542 255 

.  State  v.  Smith,  43   Vt.   324 ...   636 

State   v.   Smithson,   106    Mo.    149 140 

State  v.   Sneed,   25   Tex.   Supp.    66 253,  435 

State  v.  Snow,  81  Iowa,  642 722 

State  v.  Snowman,  94  Me.  99 717 

State  v.   Sopher,  25  Utah,  318 721 

State  v.  Southern  Pacific  E.  E.,  24  Tex.  80 336,  343,  382 

State  v.   Southern  Ey.  Co.,  119  N.   C.  814 121,  126 

State  v.  Speyer,  67  Vt.  502 725 

State  v.   Springfield,  6  Ind.   83 312 

State   v.    Squires,   26   Iowa,   348 393 

State  v.  State  Bank,  1  S.  C.  67 331 

State  v.  State  Board,  3  S.  Dak.  388 135 

State  v.  State  Medical  etc.  Board,  32  Minn.  324 718 

State  v.  Steamship  Constitution,  42  Cal.  588 106,  116,  119 

State  v.  Stephens,  146  Mo.  681 86,  131,  137 

State  v.  Stilsing,  52  N.  J.  L.  517 140 

State    v.    Stirling,    8    Mo.    697 297 

State   v.   Stone,   118  Mo.   403 515,  577 

State  v.  Stoll,  17  Wall.  436 356 

State  v.  Strauder,  11  W.  Va.  816 740 

State  v.   Stuenkens,  60   Minn.   327 157 

State  v.  Sullivan,   14   Eich.    281 260 

State  v.  Taft,  118  N.  C.  1190 717 

State  v.  Telegraph  Co.,  47  Fed.  663 1S6,  719 

State  v.   Telephone  Co.,  36  Ohio  St.  227 180 

State  v.  Thayer,  46  Neb.  137 296 

State  v.  Thomas,  98  N.  C.  599 641 

State  v.   Thompson,  141   Mo.   417 260 

State  v.  Thompson,   160  Mo.  333 ' 727 

State  v.  Toledo,   48  Ohio   St.   112 323,  324 

State  v.  Tombeckbee  Bank,  2   Stew.  30 336,   337,   358 

State    v.    Toole,    69    Minn.    104 586 

State   v.   Topeka,   36   Kan.   76 727 

State   v.   Tower,   84   Me.   445 130 

State  v.  Town  Council,  39  S.  C.  307 344 

State  v.  Tutt,  2  Bail.  44 174,  511 

State  v.  Tutty,    41    Fed.    762 266,  698 

State   v.   Van  Wye,   136   Mo.   236 176 


864  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

State  v.  Wabash  etc.  Ey.  Co.,  83  Mo.  144 367 

State  v.  Wagener,   74   Minn.   718 458 

State   v.   Wagener,   77   Minn.   483 127 

State  v.  Wagner,  69  Minn.  206 718 

State  v.  Waite,  101  Iowa,  380 67 

State  v.  Walbridge,  119  Mo.  390 251 

State  v.  Walker,  119   Mo.  469 588 

State   v.  Waples,  12  La.   Ann.  343 297 

State  v.  Ward,  48  Ark.  36 633,  634 

State  v.  Webster,  150  Ind.   616 252 

State  v.   Welch,    65    Vt.   54 260 

State  v.  Wells,  2  Hill  (S.  C),  687 176,  511 

State  v.  Wheelock,  95  Iowa,  577 127,  576 

State  v.  White,  64  N.  H.  49 620 

State  v.  Whittemore,  50  N.  H.  251 153 

State   v.   Wilbor,   1   E.   I.   199 e 255 

State  v.   Wilforth,   74  Mo.  528 622 

State   v.  Williams,   152   Mo.   115 635 

State  v.  Williams,  1  Nott  &  MeC.  26 479 

State  v.  Williams,  10  Tex.  Civ.  App.  346 318,  429 

State  v.  Willingham,  9  Wyo.  290 142 

State  v.  Wills,  26  Minn.  381 636 

State   v.   Wilson,   7   Cr.   164 283 

State  v.  Wilson,  121  N.  C.  462 702 

State  v.  Winona  etc.  Co.,  21  Minn.  315 351 

State  v.  Woodruff,  36  N.  J.  L.  94 350 

State  v.  Woodruff  etc.  Co.,  114  Ind.  155 107 

State   v.   Yopp,    97    N.    C.   477 649,  723 

State  v.  Young,  28  Minn.  525 387 

State  v.  Young,  29  Minn.  474 306,  389,  390 

State  v.  Zaphey,  14  S.  Dak.   119 110 

State  v.  Zeno,  79  Minn.  80 71& 

State  and  Watson  v.  Bank,  5  Baxt.  65 357 

State  Bank  v.  Charleston,  3  Eich.  342 349 

State  Bank  v.  Cooper,  2  Yerg.  599 643 

State  Bank  v.  Knoop,  16  How.  408 331 

State   Bank  v.  Madison,   3   Ind.   43 317 

State  Bank  v.    People,   5    111.    303 289 

State  Bank  v.  Wilborn,  6   Ark.   35 160,  161 

State  Board  v.  Paterson  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  50  N.  J.  L.  450 332,  379 

State  Board  v.  Central  E,  E.,  4S  N.  J.  L.  290 88 

State  ex  rel.  v.  Ashbrook,  154  Mo.  375 716,  73a 

State  ex  rel.  v.  Assessors,  46  La.  Ann.  146 445 

State  v.  ex  rel.  v.  Barbour,  53  Conn.  85 488 

State  ex  rel.  v.  Corrigan  Ey.  Co.,  85  Mo.  263 323 

State   ex  rel.  v.   Gilliam,  18   Mont.   99 422 

State  ex  rel.  v.  Governor,  17  Fla.  74 460 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  865 

State  ex  rel.  v.  Insurance  Co.,  115  Ind.  265 578 

State  ex  rel.  v.  Livandias,  36  La.  Ann.  127 106 

State  ex  rel.   v.  Meier,  143  Mo.  446 461 

State  ex  rel.  v.  Porter,  89  Ind.  260 303 

State  ex  rel.  v.  Secretary  of  State,  43  La.  Ann.  655 75,  607 

State  ex  rel.  v.  Watkins,  21  La.  Ann.  631 736 

State  Home  Soc.  v.  Mayor,  35  N.  J.  L.  157 350 

State  Lottery  Co.  v.  FTtzpatrick,  3  Woods,  222 297 

State  Eailroad  Tax  Cases,  92  U.  S.  611 133 

State  Tax  on  Railway  Gross  Receipts,  15  Wall.  295 116,  444,  453 

State  Tax  on  Foreign  Held  Bonds,  15  Wall.  300 83,  278 

State  Tonnage  Tax  Cases,  12  Wall.  212 

81,  82,  131,  449,  450,  451,  452,  453,  455 

Steacy  v.  Little  Rock  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  5  Dill.  348 345 

Steamship  Co.  v.  Juliffer,  2  Wall.  457 454 

Steamboat  Co.  v.  Chase,  16  Wall.  531 536 

Steamboat  Orleans  v.  The  Phoebus,  11  Pet.  184.  .188,  506,  537,  539,  541 

Steamer  Coquitlam  v.  United  States,  163  U.  S.  352 599 

Steamship  Oregon,  The,  14  Saw.  463,  45  Fed.  77 510 

Steam  Stone-Cutter  Co.  v.  Jones,  21  Blatchf.  156,  13  Fed.  582...   498 

Stearns  v.  Atlantic  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  46  Me.  95 720 

Stearns  v.  Barre,  73  Vt.  281 656> 

Stearns    v.    Gittings,    23    111.    387 406 

Stearns  v.  Minnesota,  179  U.  S.  240 380 

Stearns  v.  United  States,  2  Paine,  308 36,   1S8,  497,  512,  610 

Steed   v.   Harvey,   18   Utah,   367 729 

Steelman  v.  Mottix,  36  N.  J.  L.  344 165 

Steen  v.  Finley,  25  Miss.  535 390 

Stein  v.  Bienville  etc.  Co.,  141  U.  S.  80 325,  333,  340 

Stein  v.   Indianapolis   etc.  Assn.,   18   Ind.   237 429 

Stein    v.    Mobile,    49    Ala.    368 284 

Stella  Block,  The,  v.  Richmond,  26  La.  Ann.   642 140 

Stelle  v.   Carroll,   12  Pet.   205 207 

Stephens,  Ex  parte,   70  Mass.  559 156,  497,  503 

Stephens,   Petitioner,   4   Gray,   561 155 

Stephens  v.  Bank,  43   Mo.   389 406 

Stephens  v.  Cherokee  Nation,  174  U.  S.  483 148,  402,  430,  484,  613 

Stephens  v.   Smith,  29  Vt.   160 375 

Stephenson   v.   Osborn,   41   Miss.    128 409,  410 

Steeler's    Case,   Phill.    (N.    C.)    302 477 

Stetson  v.  Bangor,  56  Me.  279 92 

Stevens   v.    Andrews,   31   Mo.    208 413 

Stevens  v.  Brown,  49  Miss.  599 417 

Stevens  v.  Gladding,  17  How.  451 178 

Stevens  v.  Norris,  30  N.  H.  466 168 

Stevens    v.    Ohio,    93    Fed.    795 79,128 

Notes  on  Constitution — 55 


866  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Stevens  v.  Walker,  15  La.   Ann.   577 113 

Stevens  County  v.  St.  Paul  etc.  Ey.,  36  Minn.  471 302 

Stevenson  v.  King,  2  Cliff.  2 168,  418 

Stevenson  v.  Williams,  19  Wall.  576 672 

Stewart  v.  Baltimore  etc.  B.  E.  Co.,  168  U.  : ..  449 531 

Stewart   v.   Blaine,   1   Mc Ar.   453 62 

Stewart   v.   Hunter,    16   Or.    62 72b 

Stewart  v.  Kahn,  11  Wall.  506 194,  195,   196,  213,  216 

Stewart  v.  Palmer,  80  Va.  81 240 

Stirn  v.  McQuaide,  '66  N.  H.  404 419 

Stockard  y.  Morgan,  185  U.  S.  37 141 

Stocking  v.  Hunt,  3  Denio,  274 268,  399,  400 

Stockton 's    Ca*se,    Taf t,    264 50 

Stockton  v.  Baltimore  etc.  R.  E.,  32  Fed.  13 528 

Stockton   v.   Powell,   29   Fla.    43 103 

Stockton  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Stockton,  41  Cal.  189 71,  81,  684 

Stockwell  v.  Eobinson,   9   Houst.   313 436 

Stockwell  v.   Silloway,   100  Mass.   287 165 

Stoddard   v.  Harrington,  100  Mass.   87 168,  418 

Stoddard  v.  Smith,  5  Binn.  355 433 

Stokes   v.   Eodman,    5   E.   I.    405 148,  429 

Stokes  v.  United  States,  60  Fed.  598 629 

Stolz  v.   Thompson,   44  Minn.   271 722 

Stone  v.  Bassett,  4  Minn.  298 268 

Stone  v.   Charlestown,   114  Mass.   214 312 

Stone  v.  Farmers'  Loan  &  Trust  Co.,  116  U.  S.  325 

338,  339,  363,  366,  719 

Stone  v.  Illinois  Cent.  E.  E.  Co.,  116  U.  S.  347 360 

Stone  v.  Mississippi,  101  U.  S.  816 283,  298,  342,  343,  438,  439,  442 

Stone  v.  New  Orleans  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  116  U.  S.  352 666,  367 

Stone  v.  Tibbetts,  26  Me.  112 168 

Stone  v.  Wisconsin,  94  U.  S.  182 373 

Stone  v.  Yazoo  etc.  E.  R.,  62  Miss.  607 338,  367 

Stoner  v.  Flournoy,  28  La.  Ann.  850 311 

Stork  v.  Chesapeake  Ins.   Co.,  7   Cr.  423 156 

Storrs  v.  St.  Luke's  Hospital,  180  111.  375 93 

Storrs   v.   State,   129   Ala.   101 636 

Storti  v.  Massachusetts,   183  U.  S.   138 709 

Story  v.  Furman,  25  N.  Y.  214 346,  420 

Stoutenburgh  v.  Hennick,  129  U.  S.  147 206,  207 

Strader  v.  Graham,  10  How.  82 591,  594,  595,  682 

Stratford   v.   Montgomery,   110    Ala.   619 143 

Strauder  v.  West  Virginia,  100  U.  S.  307. .  .154,  315,  571,  705,  730,  737 

Strawbridge  v.   Curtiss,  3   Cr.   267 528 

Streep  v.  United  States,  160  U.  S.  134 57:1 

Street  v.  United   States,  133  U   S.  307 197 

Strieker,  Ex  parte,  109  Fed.  145 64* 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  867 

Strickland  v.  Draugham,  91   N.   C.   104 406 

Strickler  v.  Yager,  29  Fed.   244 305 

Strobridge  v.  Lindsey,  2  Fed.  695 184 

Strode  v.  Washer,  17  Or.  50 280 

Strong  v.  Daniels,  5  Ind.  348 413 

Strong  v.   State,   1  Blackf .   193 228,  256 

Strong  v.   Waterman,   11   Paige,   607 148,  149 

Strother  v.  Lucas,   12  Pet.   439 481,  522,  598,  612 

Strouse,   Ex  parte,   1   Saw.   605 639 

Stuart   v.   Easton,   156   U.    S.   47 506,  533 

Stuart    v.    Laird,    1    Cr.    309 187,  51o 

Sturgeon  etc.  Canal  Co.  v.  Leatham,  164  111.  243 363 

Sturges  v.  Carter,  114  U.   S.  16 275 

Sturges  v.  Crowinshield,  4  Wheat.  202.  .  .31,  158,  161, 162.  166, 172 

282,  384,  387,  389,  398,  399,  402,  406,  409,  417,  418,  419,  678,  681 

Sturgis  v.  Spofford,  45  N.  Y.  446 106 

Sturm  v.  Fleming,  31  W.  Va.   701 408 

Sturtevant  v.  Alton,  3  McLean,  393 176 

Stuttsman  v.  State,  57  Ind.  19 130 

Sullivan  v.  Brewster,  1  E.  D.  Smith,  739 26S,  426 

Sullivan   v.   Heiskell,   Crabbe,   525 165 

Sully  v.  American  National  Bank,  178  U.  S.  299 529,  707,  728 

Sultan,  In  re,  115  N.  C.  61 579,  580 

Sulzer  v.  Watson,  39  Fed.   415 673 

Sumner  v.  Mitchell,  29  Fla.  179 274,  392 

Sumpter  Co.  v.  Gainesville  Nat.  Bank.  62  Ala.  464 87 

Sun  Mutual  Ins.  Co.  v.  Board  of  Liquidation,  24  Fed.  4 421 

Sunset  Telephone    Co.  v.  Medford,  115  Fed.  202 324 

Superior  v.  Norton,  63  Fed.  359 340 

Supervisors   v.   Durant,  9   Wall.  418 509 

Supervisors  v.  Kennicott,  103  U.  S.  554 673 

Supervisors  v.  Randolph,  89  Va.  622 275 

Supervisors  v.  Stanley,  105  U.  S.  308 94 

Sutherland  v.  De  Leon,  1  Tex.  250 42S 

Susan,  In  re,  2  Wheel.  Cr.  Cas.  594 590 

Suydam  v.  Barber,  18  N.  Y.  468 564 

Suydam   v.   Broadnax,    14   Pet.    75 167,  413 

Suydam  v.  Moore,  8  Barb.  358 368,  377 

Suydam  v.  Receivers,  3  N.  J.  Eq.  313 337 

Suydam  v.  Williamson,  24  How.  433 188,  499 

Swaim  v.  United  States,  165  U.  S.  561 200 

Swan  v.  Buck,  40  Miss.  268 283,  288,  290,  294,  306 

Swan  v.  Robinson,  5  Fed.  294 158 

Swan  v.  Williams,  2  Mich.  427 82,  651,  652,  661 

Swann,  In  re,  150  U.  S.  653 675 

Sweaney  v.  United  States,  62  Wis.  400 660 

Swearingen,  Ex  parte,  13  S.  C.  74 579 


8G8  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Sweatt  v.  Boston  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  3  Cliff,  352 217,  331,  680 

Sweet  v.  Eechel,  159  U.  S.  392 214,  651,  659,  660,  726 

Swickard  v.  Bailey,  3  Kan.  507 408,  409 

Swift  v.  Fletcher,  6  Minn.  550 414,  424,  431 

Swift  v.  Eichardson,  7  Houst.  355 333 

Swinbum  v.  Mills,  17  Wash.  622 415,  423 

Sykes  v.  Spencer,  Taf t,  556 50 

Tabor  v.  Ward,  83  N.  C.  291 435 

Taggart  v.  McGinn,  14  Pa.  St.  155 268 

Talbert  v.  United  States,  155  U.  S.  46 54S 

Talbot  v.  Seeman,  1  Cr.  33 193,  613 

Talbott  v.  Silver  Bow  County,  139  U.  S.  444 85,  206,  21S 

Talbutt  v.  State,  39  Tex.  Cr.  64 141 

Talton  v.  Mayes,  163  U.  S.  383 148,  151,  612 

Tarble's  Case,  13  Wall.  408 197,  476,  507,  513 

Tarleton  v.  Southern  Bank,  41  Ala.  722 435,  437 

Tarpley  v.  Hamer,  17  Miss.  310 268,  286,  394,  427 

Tate  v.  Bell,  4  Yerg.   202 432 

Taunton  v.  Taylor,  116  Mass.  254 118 

Tax  Cases,  12  Gill  &  J.  117 353 

Tayloe  v.  Thompson,  5  Pet.  368 207 

Taylor,  In  re,  48  Md.  28 706 

Taylor  v.  Barron,  30  N.  H.  78 565 

Taylor  v.  Beckham,  178  U.  S.  578 462 

Taylor  v.  Carryl,  20  How.  597 188,  509,  540 

Taylor  v.  Flint,  35  Ga.  154 437 

Taylor  v.  Griswold,  14  N.  J.  L.  234 33] 

Taylor  v.  Keeler,  30  Conn.  324 419,  431 

Taylor  v.  Kercheval,  82  Fed.  497 501 

Taylor  v.  Morton,  2  Curt.  454 612,  613,  614 

Taylor  v.  Porter,  4  Hill,  140 643,  646,  647 

Taylor  v.  Eailroad  Co.,  6  Cold.  646 656 

Taylor  v.  Stearns,  18  Gratt.  224 284,  397,  405,  414,  423 

Taylor  v.  Taintor,  16  Wall.  370 512,  580,  583,  585,  586,  609,  610 

Taylor  v.  Thomas,  22  Wall.  490 240,  242,  243,  244,  685 

Taylor  v.  Thompson,  42  Ga.  9 198 

Taylor  v.  Ypsilanti,  105  U.  S.  72 272,  329 

Teal  v.  Felton,  12  How.   254 510 

Teal  v.  Walker,  111  U.  S.  252 288 

Telegraph  Co.  v.  Texas,  105  U.  S.  464 95,  107 

Templeton  v.  Home,  82  111.  401 '. 398,  400,  426 

Tennessee  v.  Claiborne,  1  Meigs,  331 573 

Tennessee  v.  Davis,  100  U.  S.  264 519 

Tennessee  v.  Pullman  Car  Co.,  117  IT.  S.  52 144 

Tennessee  v.  Sneed,  96  U.  S.   74 399 

Tennessee   v.   Whitworth,   117   U.   S.   136 278.   300 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  869 

Tennessee  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Moore,  36  Ala.  386 288,  289 

Teralta  Land  etc.  Co.  v.  Shaffer,  116  Cal.  518 424 

Terlinder  v.  Ames,  184  U.  S.  288 462,  502 

Terrett  v.  Taylor,  9  Cr.  43 283,  292,  308,  310,  332,  334,  377,  607,  609 

Terrell  v.  Eankin,  2  Bush,  453 413 

Territory  v.  Cox,  6  Dak.  521 149 

Territory  v.  Day,  2  Okla.  411 667 

Territory  v.  Evans,  2  Idaho,  634 128 

Territory  v.  Farnsworth,  5  Mont.  317 445 

Territory  v.  O  'Connor,  5  Dak.  408 441 

Terry,  In  re,  128  U.  S.  289 223,  506,  648 

Terry  v.  Anderson,  95  U.  S.  637 399,  406,  407,  433 

Texas  v.  White,  7  Wall.  700 36,  49,  201, 

•  239,  240,  241,  243,  244,  472,  473,  544,  603,  604,  677,  682,  685,  693 
Texas  etc.  Ey.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission,  162  U.  S. 

233   215 

Texas  etc.  Ey.  Co.  v.  Southern  Pacific  Co.,  137  U.  S.  55 566 

Thames  Bank  v.  Lovell,  18  Conn.  511 103,  454,  455 

Thayer  v.  Hedges,  22  Ind.  301 78,  89,  171,  172,  249 

Thayer  v.  Hedges,  23  Ind.  141 90 

Thayer  v.  Seavey,  11  Me.  284 285 

Thebo  v.  Choctaw  Tribe,  66  Fed.  375 526 

Theilon  v.  Porter,  14  Lea,  622 725 

Thomas,  Ex  parte,  71  Cal.  204 139 

Thomas  v.  American  Land  Co.,  47  Fed.  559 674 

Thomas  v.  Chicago  etc.  Ey.  Co.,  37  Fed.  549 485 

Thomas  v.  Crow,  65  Cal.  471 168 

Thomas  v.  Cay,  169  IT.  S.  270 484 

Thomas  v.   Gibbons,  The,   8   Cr.   428 196 

Thomas  v.  Grand  Junction,  13  Colo.  App.  88 325 

Thomas  v.  Leland,  24  Wend.  65 315 

Thomas  v.  Loney,  137  U.  S.  370 497 

Thomas  v.  Eichmond,  12  Wall.  357 244,  685 

Thomas  v.  Taylor,  42  Miss.  704 241,  243,  615 

Thomas  Jefferson,  The,  10  Wheat.  429 537 

Thomas  Swan,  The,  6  Ben.  45 96 

Thompson,  In  re,  117  Mo.  90 692 

Thompson  v.  Alger,  12  Met.  428 160 

Thompson  v.  Buckley,  34  Leg.  Int.  148 415 

Thompson  v.  Carroll,  22  How.  435 206 

Thompson  v.  Commonwealth,  81  Pa.  St.  314 400 

Thompson  v.  French,  10  Yerg.  456 669 

Thompson  v.  Guion,  5  Jones  Eq.  113   372 

Thompson  v.  Holton,  6  McLean,  386 301,  302 

Thompson  v.  Hubbard,  131  U.  S.  151 182 

Thompson  v.  Lee  County,  3  Wall.  331 273,  274,  329,  39.? 

Thompson  v.  Mankin,  26  Ark.  586 242.  243.  244 


870  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Thompson  v.  Missouri,  171  U.  S.  387 260 

Thompson  v.  Pacific  E.  R.  Co.,  9  Wall.  579 81,  85,  133,  212 

Thompson  v.  Railroad  Co.,  3   Sand.  Ch.  625 360,  361 

Thompson  v.  Smith,  79  Me.  162 632 

Thompson  v.  State,  6  Neb.  107 634 

Thompson  v.  The  Catbarina,  1  Pet.  Adm.  104 534 

Thompson  v.  United  States,  142  U.  S.  478 233 

Thompson  v.  United  States,  155  U.  S.  274 633 

Thompson  v.  Utah,  170  U.  S.  349 

228,   253,  259,  260,  262,  551,  553,  665,  666 

Thompson  v.  Whitman,  18  Wall.  463 562,  564 

Thorington  v.  Montgomery,  147  U.  S.  492 607,  627 

Thorington  v.  Smith,  8   Wall.  1 243,  385,  557 

Thornburg  v.  Harris,  3  Cold.   157 242,  247 

Thormann  v.  Frame,  176  U.  S.  356 562 

Thorndyke  v.  Bank,  1  Woods,  8 16? 

Thorndyke  v.  United  States,  2  Mason,  18 89 

Thorne  v.  San  Francisco,  4  Cak  127 422 

Thornton,  Ex  parte,  4  Hughes,  230,  12  Fed.  546 142,  574 

Thornton  v.  Hooper,  14  Oal.  9 269,  289 

Thornton  v.  McGrath,  1  Duval.1,  349 434 

Thornton  v.  Marginal  F.  R.  Co.,  123  Mass.  32 371 

Thornton  v.  Schreiber,  124  U.  S.  613 181,  182 

Thorpe  v.  Burlington  etc.  R.  R.,  27  Vt.  160 120,  333 

Thorpe  v.  Rutland  etc.  R.  R.,  27  Vt.  140.  .  .120,  336,  340,  368,  438,  651 

Thrasher  v.  Bentley,  1  Abb.  N.  C.  39 165 

Thresher  v.  Atchison,   117  Cal.  73 424 

Thurston  v.  Peay,  21  Ark.  85 357 

Tiernan  v.  Rinker,  102  U.  S.  127 102,  140 

Tilley  v.  Railroad  Commrs.,  4  Woods,  438,  5  Fed.  650 115 

Tillotson   v.   Millard,   7   Minn.   513 411,  424 

Tilton  v.  Swift,  40  Iowa,  78 265,  394 

Timms  v.   Grace,   26   Ark.   598 242 

Timmons  v.  Eylton  Land  Co.,  139  U.  S.  379 529 

Tindal  v.  Wesley,  167  U.  S.  214 68!) 

Tinsley  v.  Anderson,  171  U.  S.  108 648 

Tinsman,  In  re,  95  Fed.  560 141 

Tobin  v.  Trump,  3  Brewst.  288 163 

Tobin  v.  Wilkinshaw,  McCall,  186 56S 

Tod,  In  re,  12  S.  Dak.  386 580 

Tod  v.  Count  of  Common  Pleas,  15  Ohio  St.  387 217,  514 

Tod  v.  Wick  Bros.,  30  Ohio  St.  370 179 

Todd  v.  Johnson,  99  Ky.  554 464 

Todd  v.  Neal,  49  Ala.  266 430 

Toland  v.  Sprague,  12  Pet.  330 189,  506 

Toledo  Bank  v.  Bond,  1  Ohio  St.  655 290 

Toledo  Com.  Co.  v.  Glen  Mfg.  Co.,  55  Ohio  St.  222 105 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  '         871 

Toledo  etc.  Ry.  v.  Deacon,  63  111.  91 343 

Toledo  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  City  of  Jacksonville,  67  111.  37 

118,  343,  367,  368,  369 

Toledo  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania  Co.,  54  Fed.  749 519 

Tolen  v.  Tolen,  3  Blackf.  407 260 

Tompkins'  v.  Forrestal,  54  Minn.  119 431 

Tom  Tong,  108  U.  S.  560 223 

Tomlinson  v.  Branch,  15  Wall.  468 299,  300,  355 

Tomlinson  v.  Jessup,  15  Wall.  454 299,  300,  353,  371,  379 

Toof  v.  Martin,  13  Wall.  47 158 

Tooley  v.  Gridtey,  3  Smedes  &  M.  516 •  423 

Topliff  v.  Topliff,  145  U.  S.  171 185 

Totten  v.  United  States,  92  U.  S.  107 470 

Town  Council  v.  Pressley,  33  S.  C.  56 728 

Towne  v.  Smith,  1  Wood.  &  M.  130 168,  169,  398,  402,  418,  419 

Town  of  Pawlet  v.  Clark,  9  Cr.  292 283,  292,  333,  532 

Townsend  v.  Jemison,  9  How.  413 406 

Townsend  v.  State,  147  Ind.  624 721 

Townsend  v.  Townsend,  Peck,  1 249,  387,  388,  389,  400,  401,  413 

Townsend  Bank  v.  Epping,  3  Woods,  393 409 

Towsey  v.  Avery,  11   Ohio,  93 403,  41 9 

Tracy's  Case,  Taft,  3 51 

Tracy  v.  Reed,  38  Fed.  69 280 

Tracy  v.  Swartwout,  10  Pet.  80 47d 

Trademark  Cases,  100  U.  S.  94 178 

Train  v.  Boston  Disinfecting  Co.,  144  Mass.  531 104,  124,  125 

Transit  Co.  v.  Lynch,  18  Utah,  394 137 

Transportation  Co.,  In  re,  5  Fed.  614 107 

Transportation  Co.  v.  Parkersburg,  107  U.  S.  702 

102,  103,  454,  455,  456 

Transportation  Co.  v.  Wheeling,  99  U.  S.  277 

81,   131,  137,  451,  452,  453 

Trask  v.  Maguire,  18  Wall.  401 351 

Travelers'  Ins.  Co.  v.  Brouse,  83  Ind.  62 413,  425 

Travelers'  Ins.  Co.  v.  Fricke,  99  Wis.  377 231 

Treadway  v.   Sehnauber,   1   Dak.   236 601 

Tredway  v.  Riley,  32  Neb.  495 127 

Treasurer  v.  Philadelphia  etc.  R.  R.,  4  Houst.  189 116,  134 

Treasurer  v.  Wygall,  46  Tex.  462 434 

Treat  v.  White,  181  U.  S.  269 214,  503,  524 

Treat  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Standard  Steel  etc.  Co.,  157  U.  S.  675 670 

Trebilock  v.  Wilson,  12  Wall.  695 91 

Tribune  Co.  v.  Associated  Press,  116  Fed.  126 182 

Trigg  v.  Drew.  10  How.  224 250,  356 

Trombley   v.    Humphrey,    23    Mich.    482 607,658 

Troutman,  In  re,  4  Zab.   604 585 

Troy  v.  Rutland  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  17  Barb.  581 371 


872  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Troy  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Kerr,  17  Barb.  581 376 

Trumbull 's  Case,   Taf t,   148 53 

Trustees  v.  Aberdeen,  21  Miss.  645 310 

Trustees  v.  Bailey,  10  Fla.  112 288,  328 

Trustees  v.  Bradbury,  11  Me.  118 330,  331 

Trustees  v.  Indiana,  14  How.  273 601 

Trustees  v.  Eider,  13  Conn.  87 263,  282,  283,  284,  288,  294,  384 

Trustees  v.  St.  Johns  E.  E.,  16  Fla.  542 283,  289 

Trustees  v.  Tatman,  13,111.  27 310 

Trustees  v.  Winston,  5  Stew.  &  P.  17 340,  370,  383 

Trustees  Dartmouth  College  v.  Woodward,  4  Wheat.  629 

28,  266,  282,  283,  284, 

290,  292,  309,  324,  330,  332,  333,  334,  335,  370,  523,  643,  677,  679 

Trustees  of  Newport  v.  Taylor,  6  J.  J.  Marsh.  134 360 

Trustees  of  Wabash  etc.  Co.  v.  Beers,  2  Black,  452 304 

Tua  v.  Carriere,  117  U.  S.  210 164,  512 

Tuchman  v.  Welsh,  42  Fed.  555 445 

Tuckahoe  Canal  Co.  v.  Eailroad  Co.,  11  Leigh,  73 334,  342,  362 

Tucker  v..  Alexandroff,  183  U.  S.  424 612 

Tucker  v.  Booker,   2  Barb.   772 41,     60 

Tucker  v.  Ferguson,  22  Wall.  575 299,  300,  301,  302,  349 

Tucker  v.  Harris,  13  Ga.  10 561 

Tucker   v.   Potter,   35   Conn.   46 83 

Tug  Eiver  Coal  etc.  Co.  v.  Brigel,  67  Fed.  627 505 

Tullis  &  Lake  Erie  etc.  E.  E.,  175  U.  S.  34 731 

Tuolumne  Eedemption  Co.  v.  Sedgwick,  15  Cal.  516 409,  422,  424 

Turman,  Ex  parte,  26  Tex.   708 664 

Turner,  In  re,  1  Abb.  U.  S.  184 692 

Turner  v.   Althous,   6   Neb.   54 650 

Turner  v.  Bank  of  North   America,   4  Dall.   10 

1S7,   496,   503,   505,  506,   523 

Turner  v.  Detroit,   104  Mich.   326 326 

Turner  v.  Maryland,  107  U.  S.   38 123,  449,  450 

Turner  v.   Missionary  Union,   5   McLean,   344 613 

Turner  v.   New  York,   168   U.  S.   94 406,  407 

Turner  v.  State,  40  Ala.  21 256 

Turner  v.  Watkins,  31   Ark.  429 424 

Turner  v.  Wilkes  Co.,   173  U.  S.  464 269 

Turney  v.   Marshall,   1   Bart.   167 40,   41 

Turnpike  Co.   v.  Maryland,   3  Wall.   210 362 

Turnpike  Co.  v.  Montgomery  County,  100  Tenn.  422 360,  362 

Turnpike  Co.  v.  Eailroad  Co.,  10  Gill  &  J.  392 342 

Turnpike  Eoad  v.  Eailroad   Co.,  81  Md.  256 656 

Turpin  v.  Burgess,  11 7  U.  S.  505 449 

Turpin  v.  Commissioners,  7  Ind.   172 290 

Tuthill,  Matter  of,   163   N.   Y.   133 654 

Tuttle  v.  Block,  104  Cal.  443 279 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  87.1 

Tuttle  v.  Michigan  Air-Line,  35  Mich.   247 372 

Twilley  v.   Perkins,   77   Md.   252 723 

Twitchell  v.   Commonwealth,  7  Wall.   326 37,  607,   627,   663 

Tyerman,  In  re,  48  Fed.  167 142 

Tyler,  Ex  parte,  149   U.   S.   164 508 

Tyler  v.  Cass  Co.,  1  N.  Dak.  382 84 

Tyler  v.  Def rees,   11  Wall.   345 194.  201 

Tyler  v.  Pomeroy,  8  Allen,  493 202 

Tyler  v.  Tehama  County,  109  Cal.  623 655 

Tyson's  Case,  4  Opin.  Atty.   Gen.   30 492 

Tyson,  In   re,   13   Colo.   484 255 

Ulrich,  Ex  parte,  42  Fed.  587 70S 

Umbenhauer  v.  Miller,  1  Woodw.  Dec.   69 421 

Underhill   v.   Hernandez.   168   U.   S.   253 243,   656 

Underwood  v.  Lilly,  10  Serg.  &  E.  97 394,  43t 

Underwood   v.  McDuffee,   15   Miss.    361 613 

Union  Bank  v.   State,   9   Yerg.  490 270,   352 

Union  Gas  Co.  v.  Doak,  88  Fed.  89 184 

Union  Imp.   Co.  v.   Commonwealth,  69  Pa.   St.   140 353 

Union  Iron  Co.  v.  Pierce,  4  Biss.  327 391 

Union  National  Bank  v.   Chicago,  3  Biss.   82 574 

Union  Pacifie  Ry.  Co.  v.  De  Busk,  12  Colo.  294 346,  369,  720 

Union  Pacific  Ry.  Co.  v.  Porter,  38  Neb.  226 720 

Union  R.  R.  Co.  v.  East  Tennessee  R.  R.  Co.,  14  Ga.  327 

382,  456,  457 

Union  St.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Snow,  168  U.  S.  707 401 

Union  Trust  Co.  v.  Stearns,  119   Fed.   740 527 

United  Companies  v.  Weldon,  47  N.  J.  L.  63 434 

United  States  v.  Alberti,  Hemp.  444 505 

United  States  v.  Alexander,  148  U.  S.  187 654,  656 

United  States  v.  Allred,  155  U.  S.  594 486 

United  States  v.  Almeida,  24  Fed.  Cas.  776   191 

United  States  v.  Amedy,  11  Wheat.  407 563 

United  States  v.  American  Bell  Tel.  Co.,  159  U.  S.  549.. 504,  546,547 

United  States  v.  American  Bell  Tel.  Co.,  29  Fed.  33 505 

United  States  v.  Ames,  1  Wood.  &  M.  76 208,  210,  497,  652 

United  States  v.  Amsden,  10  Biss.  283,  6  Fed.  822 740 

United  States  v.  Angell,  11  Fed.  34 87,  666 

United  States  v.  Anthony,   11   Blatchf.   210 671,   693 

United  States  v.  Arizona,  120  U.  S.  488 174,  191 

United  States  v.  Arredondo,  6  Pet.  709.  . .  .265,  460,  499,  502,  518,  613 

United   States  v.   Arwo,   19   Wall.   490 551 

United  States  v.  Athens  Armory,  2  Abb.  U.  S.  150 476 

United   States  v.   Avery,  Deady,   207 486 

United  States  v.  Bailey,   1   McLean,   234 95 


874  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

United  States  v.   Baily,   9   Pet.   257 61,  149 

United  States  v.  Bainbridge,  1  Mason,  71 197 

United  States  v.  Ball,  163  U.  S.  669 632,  634 

United  States  v.  Ballin,  144  U.  S.  6 61,  62,  65 

United  States  v.  Baltimore  etc.  E.  K.  Co.,  1  Hughes,  144 460 

United  States  v.  Bank  of  Arkansas,   Hemp.   462 487 

United  States  v.  Bank  of    North  Carolina,  6  Pet.  35 217 

United  States  v.  Barger,  19  Blntchf.  250,  7  Fed.  193 553 

United  States  v.  Barnhart,  10  Saw.  497,  22  Fed.  490 627 

United   States  v.  Barrels,   1   Bord.   587 671 

United  States  v.  Bashaw,  152  U.  S.  443 460,  501 

United  States  v.  Bassetts,  5  Utah,  133 4S0 

United  States  v.  B«?ebe,  127  U.  S.  347 525 

United  States  v.  Bell,  81  Fed.  851 641 

United  States  v.  Bellingham  etc.  Co.,  81  Fed.  661 97 

United  States  v.  Benner,  Baldw.  234 54 1 

United  States  v.  Bennett,  16  Blatchf.  343 176 

United   States  v.  Bevans,  3  Wheat.  337 

130,  199,  206,  209,  210,  216,  506,  510,  535,  536,  553.  68! 

United  States  v.  Blaine,  139  U.  S.  319 460.  521 

United   States  v.   Blasingame,   116  Fed.   654 79 

United  States  v.  Block,  128  U.  S.  48 461 

United  States  v.  Block,  4  Saw.  211 628 

United   States  v.  Boyd,  68  Fed.   577 149,  525 

United  States  v.  Boyd,  83  Fed.  554 150 

United  States  v.  Boyer,  85  Fed.  425 77,  87,  100,  110,  216,  443 

United  States  v.  Bradley,  10  Pet.  343 36 

United  States  v.  Bright,  Bright.  N.  P.  19 670 

United  States  v.  Britton,  108  U.  S.  206 551 

United   States    v.   Brown,   4    McLean,    142 173 

United  States  v.  Buntin,  10  Fed.  730 704,  731 

United   States  v.  Burgess,  3   McCrary,  278 629 

United  States   v.   Burlington   etc.   Ferry   Co.,   21   Fed.   335 

112,  498,   508 

United  States  v.  Burns,  12  Wall.  252 185 

United  States  v.  Burns,  5  McLean,  23 173 

United  States  v.  Burr,  4  Cr.  470 32,  556 

United  States  v.  C.  O.  &  G.  R.  R.  Co.,  3  Okla.  451 188 

United  States  v.  Cadwallader,  59  Fed.  679 629 

United  States  v.  Campbell,  6  Hall.  L.  J.  113 520 

United  States  v.  Castillero,  2  Black,  355 194 

United  States  v.   Cathcart,   1  Bond.  556 27,  241,  685 

United   States  v.   Cha-to-kah-na-he-sha,   Hemp.   27 147 

United  States  v.  Cheneweth,  4  West.  L.  Mo.  165 557 

United  States  v.  Chicago,  7  How.  195 652 

United  States  v.   Chong  Sam,  47   Fed.   883 73 

United  States  v.  Cisna,  1  McLean,  254 147,  149,  150 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  875 

United  States  v.  Coe,  155  U.   S.   85 503 

United  States  v.  Cole,  5  McLean,  513 191 

United  States  v.  Collins,  1  Woods,  499 640 

United  States  v.  Combs,  12  Pet.  78 96,  109,  215 

United  States  v.  Conway,  Hemp.   313 415,   425 

United  States  v.  Coolidge,  1  Wheat.  416 506,  551 

United  States   v.   Cooper,   4   Dall.   341 67 

United  States  v.  Coppersmith,  2  Flipp.  557,  4  Fed.  206 173 

United  States  v.  Cornell,  2  Mason,  66  205,  208,  209 

United  States  v.   Coryell,   2   Mason,   91 9 1 

United  States  v.  Crosby,  7  Cr.  116 20S 

United  States  v.  Crosby,  1  Hughes,  448 39 

United  States  v.  Cruikshank,  92  U.  S.  542 

37,  39,  42,  155,  212,  471,  472,  569 

607,  619,  621,  622,  678,  683,  692,  694,  701,  702,  703,  708,  737,  738 

United  States  v.  Cruikshank,  1  Woods,  314 212,  215,  664 

United  States  v.  Cullerton,  8  Biss.  171 479 

United  States  v.  Curtis,  4  Mason,   232 551 

United  States  v.   Cutter,  2   Curt.   623 460,  471 

United   States  v.   Cutting,   3   Wall.   443 87 

United  States  v.  Davis,  5  Mason,  356 208,  209 

United  States  v.  Dawson,  15   How.  488 553,   664 

United  States  v.  Des  Moines  etc.  E.  E.,  142  U.  S.  544 502,  524 

United  States  v.  DeWalt,  128  U.  S.  393 629,  630 

United  States  v.  DeWitt,  9  Wall.  41 100,  124,  439,  443 

United  States  v.  Diekelman,  92  U.  S.  526 224,  473 

United  States  v.  Distillery,  6  Biss.  483 227,  671 

United  States  v.   Distilled  Spirits,   14   Wall.   44 673 

United  States  v.  Drennen,  Hemp.  325 219,  50.3 

United  States  v.  Dunnington,  146  U.  S.  344 499,  650,  660 

United  States  v.  Easson,  18  Fed.  590 177 

United  States  v.  Eaton,  169  U.  S.  344 489,  551 

United  States  v.  Ebert,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,019 629 

United  States  v.  E.  C.  Knight  Co.,  156  U.  S.  15 

99,  101,  110,  111,  126,  680 

United  States   v.   Edgerton,   80   Fed.    376 640 

United  States  v.  Eliason,  16  Pet.  302 200,  207,  469,  470 

United   States  v.   Elliott,  64  Fed.   27 498 

United  States  v.  Ewing,  47  Fed.  812 147 

United  States  v.  Fairchilds,  1  Abb.  U.  S.  77 217 

United  States  v.  Farden,  99  U.  S.  19 460,  4S9 

United  States   v.  Ferriera,  13   How.  40 

489,   499,   500,   516,  521,   542,   613,   644 

United  States  v.  Field,  16  Fed.  778 629 

United  States  v.  Fisher,  2  Cr.  396 212,  213,  217,  218 

United  States  v.  Fitzgerald,  15  Pet.  421 59S 


876  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

United  States  v.  Flecke,  2  Ben.  456 635 

United  States  v.  Forty-three  Gallons  of  Whisky,  93  U.  S.  19^.  . 

100,  146,  147,  156,  481,  482,  483,  612 

United  States  v.  Forty-three  Gallons  of  Whisky,  108  U.  S.  494.  .    100 

United  States  v.  Fox,  94  U.  S.  320 219,  682 

United  States  v.  Fox,  95  U.  S.  672 160,  658,  664 

United  States  v.  Freeman,  3  How.   567 200,  470 

United  States  v.  Fries,  2  Whart.  St.  Tr.  482 555,  556,  557,  558 

United  States  v.  Gale,  109  U.  S.  65 56 

United  States  v.  Gardner,  10  Pet.  624 173 

United  States  v.  Germaine,  99  U.  S.  509 490 

United  States  v.  Gettysburg  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  160  U.  S.  685 

77,  651,  652,  654,  657,  662 

United   States  v.   Gibert,  2   Sum.   101 229,   257 

United  States  v.  Gilbert,  2  Sum.  19 552,  633 

United  States  v.  Glab,  99  U.  S.  2-25 87 

United    States   v.    Gleason,    78   Fed.    397 156 

United  States  v.  Goldman,  3  Woods,  187 39,  56 

United  States  v.  Gratiot,  14  Pet.  537 219,  570,  590,  597,  598,  600 

United  States  v.  Great  Falls  Mfg.  Co.,  21  Md.  119 294 

United  States  v.   Great  Falls  Mfg.  Co.,  112  U.  S.  654 659 

United  States  v.  Greathouse,  2  Abb.  U.  S.  364 555,  556,  557,  558 

United  States  v.  Green,  138  U.  S.  296 73 

United  States  v.  Greiner,  4  Phila.  396 556,  558 

United  States  v.  Grush,  5  Mason,  290 191 

United   States   v.   Guthrie,    17   How.   304 236,   460 

United  States  v.  Hall,  98  U.  S.  357 218 

United  States  v.  Hamilton,  3  Dall.  18 514 

United  States  v.  Hanway,  2  Wall.  Jr.  139 555,  557,  553 

United  States  v.  Harris,  106  U.  S.  629 

76,   214,   576,   678,  679,  694,   696,  697,  737,   733 

United  States  v  Harris,  1  Abb.  U.  S.  114 223,  226,  476,  479,  611 

United  States  v.  Haskell,  4  Wash.  C.  C.  402 633,  63 1 

United  States  v.  Harsha,  172  U.  S.  572 492 

United  States  v.  Hartwell,  6  Wall.  393 485 

United   States  v.   Haynes,  29  Fed.   696 187,  513 

United  States  v.  Hill,  123  U.  S.  681 71 

United  States  v.  Hodges,  2  Wheel.  C.  C.  477 556,  557,  553 

United  States  v.  Holliday,  3  Wall.  419 

95,  98,   109,   147,   149,   150,  461,   502 

United  States  v.  Holmes,  5  Wheat.  417 190 

United  States  v.  Hood,  2  Cr.  C.   C.  133 638 

United  States  v.  Hooe,  3  Cr.  91 158 

United  States  v.  Hopewell,  51  Fed.  800 71 

United  States  v.  Hopkins,  82  Fed.  541 445 

United  States  v.  Howell,  11  Wall.  437 17:) 

United  States  v.  Howland,  4  Wheat.   108 523 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  877 

United   States  v.  Hoxie,  1  Paine,   265 555,   557 

United  States  v.  Huckabee,  16  Wall.  434 472 

United  States  v.  Hudson,  7  Cr.   33 506,  551 

United  States  v.  Huff,  13  Fed.  635 191 

United  States  v.  Hughes,  8  Ben.  29 229,  253,  257 

United  States  v.  Illinois  etc.  E.  E.  Co.,  154  U.  S.  239 678 

United  States  v.  Insurance  Cos.,  22  Wall.  103 244 

United  States  v.  Jackalow,  1  Black,  486 553 

United  States  v.  James,   13  Blatchf .   207 71 

United  States  v.  Jefferson  County,  1  McCrary,  361,  5  Dill.  315, 

278,  317,  389 

United  States  v.  Johns,  4  Dall.  412 563,  637 

United  States  v.  Joe,  4  Chic.  Leg.  N.  105,  Fed.  Oas.  No.  15,478. .     506 

United  States  v.  Joint  Traffic  Assn.,  171  U.  S.  571 101 

United  States  v.  Jones,  18  How.  96 471 

United   States  v.  Jones,   109   U.   S.   515 660,   671 

United  States  v.  Jones,  119  U.  S.  480 54S 

United  States  v.  Judges,  32  Fed.  715 272 

United  States  v.  Jung  Ah  Lung,  124  U.  S.  627 533 

United  States  v.  Kagama,  118  U.  S.  378 100,  147,  483,  59'? 

United  States  v.  Kelly,  11  Wheat.  418 191 

United  States  v.  Keen,  1  McLean,  434 633 

United   States   v.   Kelsey,   42   Fed.    8S3 56 

United  States  v.  Keokuk,  6  Wall.  516 683 

United  States  v.  Kimball,  117  Fed.  156 64 1 

United  States  v.  King,  5  McLean,  210 173 

United  States  v.  Kirby,  7  Wall.  485 67,  176 

United  States  v.  Kirkpatrick,  9  Wheat.   734 488,  492 

United  States  v.  Klein,  13  Wall.  142 476,  477,  478 

United  States  v.  Klintock,  5  Wheat.  151 190 

United  States  v.  Koehler,  9  Wall.  86 242 

United  States  v.  La  Fontaine,  4  Cr.  C.  C.  173 544 

United  States  v.  Lancaster,  4  Wash.  C.  C.  66 479,  523 

United  States  v.  Lane,  3  McLean,  365 36 

United  States  v.  Langston,  118  U.   S.  394 2«6 

United  States  v.  Langton,  5  Mason,  284 158 

United  States  v.  Lathrop,  17  Johns.  4   497,  510,  520 

United  States  v.  La  Vengeance,  3  Dall.   297 669,  670 

United  States  v.  Lee,  106  U.  S.  207 501,  526,  650 

United  States  v.  Lee,  4  Cr.  C.  C.  446 '. 637 

United  States  v.  Lee  Yen  Tai,  185  U.  S.  220 484,  613 

United  States  v.  Dibby,  1  Wood.  &  M.  235 221 

United   States  v.   Lincoln   Co.,   5   Dill.   184 27S 

United  States  v.  Loftis,  8  Saw.  197,  12  Fed.  674 170 

United  States  v.  Loring,  91  Fed.  882 176 

United  States  v.  Louisville  etc.  Canal  Co.,  4  Dill  611 292 


878  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

United  States  v.  Lynah,  188  U.  S.  445 (554 

United  States  v.  Lynch,  137  U.  S.  286 400 

United  States  v.  McBratney,  104  U.  S.   623 • 147 

United  States  v.  McCready,  11  Fed.  225 175,  176 

United  States  v.  McCrary,  91  Fed.  296 4S5 

United  States  v.  McMillan,  165  U.  S.  510 508,  600 

United  States  v.  Makins,  26  Fed.  Cas.  1114 153 

United  States  v.  Marigold,  9  How.  568 

171,  173,  174,  212,  218,  249,  511,  679 

United  States  v.  Marks,  2  Abb.  U.  S.  535 217 

United  States  v.  Martin,  8  Saw.  478,  14  Fed.  840 100,  146 

United  States  v.  Maurice,  2  Brock.  109 36,  485,  489,  490,  492 

United  States'  v.  Maxwell,  3  Dill.  275 628,  629 

United  States  v.  Miller,  105  Fed.  944 150 

United  States  v.  Milwaukee,  100  Fed.  828 21 J 

United  States  v.  Miner,  71  Blatchf .  511 63S 

United  States  v.  Minnesota  etc.  Ey.,  1  Minn.  127.  .  . , 292 

United  States  v.  Mitchell,  2  Dall.  348 555,  556,  557 

United  States  v.  Mobile,  12  Fed.  768 326 

United  States  v.  Monat,  124  U.  S.  307 485 

United   States  v.   Monte,   3   N.   Mex.   125 . 147 

United  States  v.  Moore,  95  U.  S.  762 485 

United  States  v.  More,  3  Cr.  160 205,  516,  546 

United  States  v.  Morris,  1  Curt.  23 633 

United  States  v.  Morrison,  Chase,  521 241 

United  States  v.  Munford,  16  Fed.  223 740 

United  States  v.  New  Bedford  Bridge,  1  Wood.  &  M.  430 

99,   101,  112,  113,  114,  187,  505,  616 

United  States  v.  New  Orleans,  98  U.  S.  397 272 

United  States  v.  New  York  Indians,  172  U.  S.  469 613 

United  States  v.  Nicol,  1  Paine,  640 697 

United  States  v.  Noelke,  17  Blatchf.  554,  1  Fed.  426 664 

United  States  v.  Northern  Securities  Co.,  120  Fed.  721,  Affirmed, 

1904 105 

United  States  v.  Norton,  91  U.  S.  569 71 

United  States  v.  O'Connor,  31  Fed.  452 56 

United   States  v.   Old  Settlers,   148  U.   S.  466 542 

United  States  v.  Olmstead,  118  Fed.  433 237 

United  States  v.  Ormsbee,  74  Fed.  209 79 

United  States  v.  Ortega,  11  Wheat.  467 524,  542,  544 

United  States  v.  Osborn,  6  Saw.  406,  2  Fed.  58 571 

United  States  v.  Packages,  Gilp.  235 671 

United  States  v.  Packages,  27  Fed.  Cas.  288 221 

United  States  v.  Padelford,  9  Wall.  542 477,  478 

United  States  v.  Paine,  4  Dill.  389 150 

United  States  v.  Palmer,  128  U.  S.  271 185 

United  States  v.  Palmer,  3  Wheat.  634 462,  494,  502 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  879 

United  States  v.  Parker,  21  Int.  Rev.  Rec.  251 639 

United  States  v.  Patterson,  150  U.  S.  68 551 

United  States  v.  Payne,  8  Fed.  888 149,  612 

United  States  v.  Percheman,  7  Pet.  51 613 

United  States  v.  Perez,  9  Wheat.  599 633 

United  States  v.  Perkins,  116  U.  S.  485 490 

United  States  v.  Perkins,  163  U.  S.  630 93 

United  States  v.  Perrin,  131  U.  S.  57 548 

United  States  v.  Peters,  5  Cr.  138 188,  506,  508,  510,  526,  688,  689 

United  States  v.  Peterson,  64  Fed.  147 536 

United  States  v.  Petit,  114  U.  S.  430 628,  629 

United  States  v.  Pirates,  5  Wheat.  197 190,  191 

United  States  v.  Pitman,  1  Sprague,  196 109 

United  States  v.  Powell,  65  N.  C.  705 735 

United  States     v.  Powers'  Heirs,  11  How.  577 473 

United  States  v.  Preston,  3  Pet.  65 222 

United  States  v.  Price,  116  U.  S.  44 237 

United  States  v.  Pridgeon,  153  U.  S.  58 509 

United  States  v.  Pryor,  3  Wash.  C.  C.  334 558 

United  States  v.  Pusey,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,098 160,  217 

United  States  v.  Ragsdale,  Hemp.  497 151 

United  States  v.  Railroad  Bridge  Co.,  6  McLean,  517 176,  210,  600 

United  States  v.  Railroad  Co.,  17  Wall.  362 80,     83 

United  States  v.  Randenbush,  8  Pet.  289 638 

United  States  v.  Rathbone,  2  Paine,  578 672,  673 

United  States  v.  Rausher,  119  U.   S.  412 

240,  456,  457,  481,  587,  612 

United  States  v.  Ravara,  2  Dall.  297 506,  524,  542,  544 

United  States  v.  Realty  Co.,  163  U.  S.  439 237 

United  States  v.  Reese,  92  U.  S.  218 90,  738,  739,  740 

United  States  v.  Reese,  5  Dill.  409 520 

United  States  v.  Reid,  90  Fed.  522 525 

United  States  v.  Reiter,  27  Fed.  Cas.  772 473 

United  States  v.  Repentigny,  5  Wall.  260 473 

United  States  v.  Reynes,  9   How.  154 462,  502 

United  States  v.  Reynolds,  98  U.  S.  145 620 

United  States  v.  Rhodes,  1  Abb.  45... 87, 108,  153,  154,  175,  176, 

197,  199,  214,  483,  571  604,  609,  610,  614,  615,  619,  693,  695,  699 

United  States  v.  Riddle,  5  Cr.  313 626 

(Tnited  States  v.  Riley,  5  Blatchf.  204 634 

United  States  v.  Ringgold,  8  Pet.  164 463 

United  States  v.  Ritchie,  17  How.  530 507,  513,  570 

United  States  v.  Rogers,  4  How.  572 147 

United  States  v.  Russell,  13  Wall.  623 656 

United  States  v.  Sa-coo-da-cot,  1  Abb.  U.  S.  383 210 

United  States  v.  Sacramento,  2  Mont.  239 666 


880  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

United  States  v.  Samperyae,  1  Humph.  118 401 

United  States  v.  San  Francisco  Bridge  Co.,  88  Fed.  891 209 

United  States  v.  Sanges,  114  U.  S.  319 546 

United  States  v.  Sanges,  48  Fed.  82 740 

United  States  v.   Sayward,   160   U.   S.   498 525 

United  States  v.  Schooner  Peggy,  1  Or.  109 482 

United  States  v.  Sehurz,  102  U.  S.  395 461 

United    States   v.    Seagrist,    4   Blatchf.    422 191 

United  States  v.  Seaman,  17  How.  230 460 

United   States  v.   Seveloff,   2   Saw.   317 150 

United  States  v.  Shanks,  15  Minn.  369 148 

United  States  v.  Shares  of  Stock,  5  Blatchf.  237 195 

United  States  v.   Shaw-Mux,   2   Saw.   365 147,  150 

United  States  v.  Sheppard,  1  Abb.  U.  S.  431 62S 

United   States  v.   Sheridan,   119  Fed.   236 525 

United  States  v.  Shoemaker,  2  McLean,  114 ...634,  638 

United  States  v.   Sims,   1   Cr.   256 207 

United  States  v.  Singer,  15  Wall.   Ill 87,  88 

United  States   v.    Smith,   5    Wheat.    158 190 

United  States  v.  Smith,  124  U.  S.  532 485,  491 

United  States  v.  Smith,  40  Fed.   757 630 

United  States  v.  Smith,  27  Fed.   Gas.   1135 191 

United  States  v.  Speed,  8  Wall.  82 471 

United  States  v.   Stahl,   McCahon,  206 209,  210 

United  States  v.  Stanford,  161  U.  S.  433 186 

United  States  v.  Sta;k,  27  Fed.  Cas.  330 242 

United  States  v.  Steever,  113  U.  S.  754 196 

United   States   v.    Stevenson,   3    Ben.    120 195 

United  States  v.   Stewart,   Crabbe,   205 197 

United  States  v.  Stocksehlager,  129  U.  S.  477 288 

United   States   v.    Sutton,   47   Fed.    130 630 

United  States  v.  Tappan,  11  Wheat.  419 86 

United  States  v.  Ta-Wang-ca,  Hemp.  304 506 

United  States  v.  Texas,  162  U.   S.  38 482,  546 

United  States  v.   The  Amistad,  15  Pet.   593 191 

United  States  v.  The  Malek  Adhel,  2  How.  232 190,  191 

United  States  v.  The  Marshal    etc.,  2  Brock.  491 15S 

United  States  v.  The  Queen,  4  Ben.  237 679 

United  States  v.  The  Three  Friends,  167  U.  S.  64 191 

United  States  v.  The  William,  2  Hall    L.  J.  272 109,  235 

United  States  v.  Thoman,  156  U.  S.  360 314,  315 

United  States  v.  Thomas,  151  U.  S.  585 147 

United  States  v.  Three  Tons  of  Coal,  6  Biss.  400 87,  88 

United  States  v.  Tichenor,  12  Fed.  415 209 

United  States  v.  Tierney,  1  Bond,  571 208,  209 

United  States  v.  Tingey,  5  Pet.  128 36,  216 

United  States  v.  Tobacco  Factory,  1  Dill.  265 148,  613 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  881 

United  States  v.  Told,  13  How.  52 500,  516 

United    States    v.    Tom,    1    Or.    26 147 

United    States    v.    Townmaker,    Hemp.    229 633 

United  States  v.  Travers,  2  Wheel.  C.  C.  490 20S 

United  States  v.  Trans-Missouri  etc.  Assn.,  166  U.  S.  312 96 

United  States  v.  Treasurer,  1  Dill.  528,  2  Abb.    U.  S.    60 272 

United   States  v.    Truesdell,   158   U.   S.   196 654 

United  States  v.  Turner,  7  Pet.  136   173 

United  States  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  R.  Co.,  91  U.  S.  91 214,  502,  524 

United  States  v.  Vassar,  5  Wall.  469 214,  233,  502 

United  States  v.  Vigol,  2  Dall.   346 556 

United  States  v.  Villato,  2  Dall.  372 154 

United  States  v.  Waddell,  112  U.  S.  76 220 

United  States  v.  Walker,  109  U.   S.  258 533 

United  States  v.  Waller,  1  Saw.  701 628 

United  States  v.  Watson,  3  Ben.  1 634 

United   States  v.   Webster,   2   Ware,   46 91,   469 

United  States  v.  Weise,  3  Wall.  Jr.  72 211 

United  States  v.  Weld,  127  U.   S.  57 482 

United   States  v.   Wells,   2   Cr.   45 633 

United  States  v.   Western  Union  Tel.   Co.,  50  Fed.   36 376,  377 

United  States  v.  Williams,  188  U.  S.  485 654 

United  States  v.  Williams,  4  Cr.  C.  C.  372 206,  521 

United   States   v.  Williams,   1   Paine,   261 73 

United  States  v.  Wilson,  7  Pet.  160 178,  223,  226,  476,  635 

United   States   v.   Wilson,   Baldw.   95 633 

United  States  v.  Wilson,  3  Blatchf.  439 191 

United  States  v.  Wiltberger,  5  Wheat.  981 88,  192,  523,  555,  556 

United   States  v.  Winans,   73  Fed.   75 525 

United  States  v.  Wise,   1   Dist.   Co.  Rep.   82 67 

United  States  v.  Wong  Kim  Ark,  169  U.  S.  701 

29,   154,  571,  692,  696,   699,   700 

United  -States   v.   Wonson,   1   Gall.   20 672 

United  States  v.   Worrall,   2   Dall.   384 218,   506 

United  States  v.  Wynn,  3  McCrary,  266 628,  629 

United  States  v.  Yates,  6  Fed.  864 171 

United  States  v.  Yorba,  1  Wall.  423 462,  494,  502 

United  States  v.  Young,  94  U.  S.  259 546 

Unite  1  States  v.  Zucker,  161  U.  S.  481 64L 

United  States  Bank  v.  Devaux,  5   Cr.  86 505 

United  States  Exp.  Co.  v.  Allen,  39  Fed.  714 135 

United  States  Exp.  Co.  v.  Hemmingway,  39  Fed.  600 135 

United  States  ex  rel.  v.  Lamont,  155  U.  S.  308 461 

Untermeyer  v.  Freund,  37  Fed.  345 185 

University  v.  Board  of  Education,  4  Mich.  225 331 

University   v.   Indiana,   14   How.   276 330 

Notes  on  Constitution — 56 


882  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

University  v.  Maltsby,  9  Irerl.  Eq.  257 330 

University  v.  North  Carolina  R.  R.,  76  N.  C.  108 332 

University  v.   People,   99   U.  S.   320 271 

Upton  >s   Case,   1   Bart.    3G9 43 

Urton  v.  Hunter,  2  W.  Va.  83 169 

Urton  v.  Sherlock,  75  Mo.  258 126 

Utiea  v.  Churchill,  33  N.  Y.  231 ')4 

Utter  v.  Franklin,  172  U.  S.  423 599,  600 

Vallandingham,  Ex  parte,   1  Wall.  253 224,  499,  549 

Vallandingham,  Ex  parte,  28  Fed.  Cas.  907 201 

Valparaiso  v.  Hagen,  153  Ind.  337 656 

Van  Allen  v.  Assessors,  3  Wall.  591 81,  84,  85,  92 

Van  Brocklin  v.  Tennessee,  117  U.  S.  176 

80,  82,  83,  84,  211,  219,  595,  598,  658 

Van  Bur  en  v.  Downing,  41  Wis.   127 102,   105 

Van  Buren  v.   Wells,   53   Ark.   368 638 

Vance  v.  Burtis,  39  Tex.  91 242 

Vance  v.  Vance,  108  U.  S.  521 394,  406 

Vance  v.  W.  A.  Vandercook  Co.,  170  U.  S.  456....  110,  123,  128,  450 

Van  Derheyden  v.  Young,  11  Johns.  150 201 

Vanderbilt  v.  Adams,  7  Cow.  348 119 

Vanderlip  v.  Grand  Rapids,   73   Mich.  535 655 

Van  Dyke  v.  McVey,  16  111.  41 597 

Van  Epps  v.  Walsh,  1  Woods,  607 244 

Van  Hook  v.  Whitlock,  26  Wend.  53 166,  421 

Van  Hoose  v.  Bush,  54  Ala.   342 281 

Van  Home  v.  Dorrance,  2  Dall.  304 259,  265,  294,  394,  519 

Van  Hostruck  v.  Madison  City,  1  Wall.  296 331 

Van  Housan  v.  Kanouse,  13  Mich.   309 89,  90,  171,  172,  249,  681 

Van  Ness'  Case,  CI.  &  H.  122 46.,  69 

Vannini  v.  Payne,  1  Harr.   65 186 

Van  Norman  v.  Gordon,  172  Mass.  580 566 

Van   Nostrand  v.   Barr,   30   Md.   128 160,   162,   163 

Van  Raugh  v.  Van   Arsdale,  3   Caines,   154 167 

Van  Reimsdyk  v.   Kane,  1   Gall.   630 418 

Van  Rensselaer  v.  Ball,  19  N.  Y.  100 268 

Van  Rensselaer  v.  Hays,  19  N.   Y.  68 432 

Van  Rensselaer  v.  Kearney,  11  How.  318 188 

Van  Rensselaer  v.  Read,  26  N.  Y.  558 399 

Van   Rensselaer   v.    Smith,   27    Barb.    104 403 

Van  Rensselaer  v.  Snyder,  13  N.  Y.  299 403 

Van  Scieever,  In  re,  42   Neb.  780 582 

Van  Slyke  v.  Wisconsin,  154  U.  S.  581 93 

Vanuxem  v.  Hazelhursts,  4  N.  J.   L.   172 167,  417 

Van  Valkenburg  v.  Brown,  43  Cal.  43 700,  703,  73.9 

Van  Zandt  v.  Waddell,  2  Yerg.  260 401,  433,  643 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  883 

Varmim  v.  Camp,  13  N.  J.  L.  332 288 

Vaughan   v.   Williams,    3    McLean,    530 591 

Vaughn   v.   Congdon,   56  Vt.    127 499 

Veatch  v.   State,   60  Ind.   291 639 

Veazie  v.  Moor,  4  How.  571 97,  99,  100,  101,  111,  112 

Veazie  Bank  v.  Fenno,  8  Wall.  548  .  .30,  88,  89,  219,  231,  233,  245,  501 

Venine  v.   Archibald,   3   Colo.   163 668 

Vega  S.  S.  Co.  v.  Consolidated  Elevator  Co.,  56  Minn.  108 719 

Verges   v.    Giboney,   38   Mo.    458 90 

Vermont  Bank  v.  Porter,  3  Day,  316 245,  404 

Vermont  etc.  E.  R.  Co.  v.  Vermont  Central  Ey.  Co.,  63  Vt.  1 

134,  279,  453 

Vicksburg  v.  Tobin,  100  IT.  S.  30 454 

Vicksburg  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Dennis,  116  IT.  S.  668 300,  348 

Victoria   Co.   v.   Bridge   Co.,   68   Tex.    67 360 

Vidal,  In  re,  179  17.  S.  527 200,   549 

Village  of  Lemont  v.  Jenks,  197  111.  363 717 

Vincinnes  University  v.  State,  14  How.  275 335 

Vincent  v.  Chicago  etc.  E.  E.,  49  111.  33 367 

Vines  v.   State,   67   Ala.   73 124,   139,   140,   141 

Virgin,  The,  v.  Vyfhius,  8  Pet.  550 535 

Virginia,  Ex  parte,  100  IT.  S.   345 703 

Virginia  v.  Bives,  100  IT.  S.  313 543,  549,  687,  703,  729,  730 

Virginia  v.  Tennessee,  148  IT.  S.  504 457,  458,  459,  546 

Virginia  v.  West  Virgina,  11  Wall.  60 450,  451,  457,  458,  459 

Virginia  Coupon  Cases,  114  IT.  S.  270 246,  357 

Visitors  v.  State,  15  Md.  330 337 

Vogelsang  v.   State,  9  Ind.   112    439 

Voight  v.  Detroit,  184  IT.  S.  122 714 

Voight  v.   Wright,   141   IT.   S.   66 123 

Von  Baumbach  v.  Bade,  9  Wis.  559.  .391,  404,  407,  417,  423,  434,  435 

Von  Galhn  v.  Varrene,  1  Dill.  515 167,  168,  169,  418 

Von  Hoffman  v.  Quincy,  4  Wall.  549 265,  282, 

£84,  289,  299,  317,  328,  384,  388,  389,  396,  397,  399,  402,  609,  611 
Voorhees'  Case,  32  N.  J.  L.  47 579,  581,  583,  585,  587 

Wabash  E.  Ey.  Co.  v.  Commissioners,  134  111.  384 278 

Wabash  etc.  E.  E.  Co.  v.  Ham,  114  IT.  S.  595 364 

Wabash  etc.  Ey.  Co.  v.  Illinois,  118  IT.  S.  564 94,  115,  334 

Wacbter   v.   Famachon,    62    Wis.    121 384 

Wade  v.  Eichmond,  18  Gratt.  583 311 

Wadleigh  v.   Gilman,   12   Me.  403 725 

Wadsworth  v.  "Union  Pacific  Ey.  Co.,  18  Colo.  600 721 

Wager  v.  Hall,  16  Wall.  599 158 

Wagner   v.   Meekins,   92   Fed.   83 105 

Wagner   v.   The   Juanita,   Newb.    358 195 

Wagner  Free  Inst.  v.  Philadelphia,  132  Pa.  St.  612 377 


88-1  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Wakely  v.  Hart,  6  Binn.   316 625 

Waldo    v.    Williams,    4    111.    764 415 

Waldron  v.  Harring,  28  Mich.  493 432 

Waldron  v.  Railroad  Go.,  8  Barb.   390 368 

Wales  v.  Whitney,  114  U.  S.  570 200 

Walker  v.  Burgess,  44  W.  Va.  399 409 

Walker  v.  Jamison,   140   Ind.   591 726 

Walker  v.  Mississippi  Valley  etc.  Ry.,  Fed.  Oas.  No.  17,079 426 

Walker  v.  New  Mexico  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  165  U.  S.  511 600,  663 

Walker  v.  Sauvi.net,  92  U.  S.  90 663,  668,  707,  709 

Walker  v.  Tipton,  3  Dana,  3 394 

Walker  v.  Whitehead,  16  Wall.  318 

263,  276,  384,  385,  389,  396,  397,  398,  431,  437 

Wall,  Ex  parte,  107  U.  S.  265 552,  631,  642,  644,  646,  648,  671 

Wall  v.  Williams,  11  Ala.  826 150,  151 

Walla  Walla  v.  Walla  Walla  Water  Co.,  172  U.  S.  9 

292,  323,  324,  334 

Wallace  v.  Simpson,  2  Bart.   731 59 

Wallace  v.  State,  33  Tex.  445 244 

Wallach  v.  Van  Riswick,  92  U.  S.  213 559,  560 

Wallamet  etc.  Br.  Co.  v.  Hatch,  9  Saw.  652,  19  Fed.  353 593,  594 

Walley  v.  The  Liberty,  12  La.  101 199 

Walling  v.  Michigan,  116  U.  S.  455 101,  140,  447,  611 

Walser  v.  Seligman,  21  Blatchf.  133,  13  Fed.  417 565 

Walsh,  In  re,  104  Fed.  519 640 

Walsh  v.  Lallande,  25  La.   Ann.   188 569 

Walston  v.  Commonwealth,  16  B.  Mon.  37 228,  261 

Walter  v.  People,  32  N.  Y.  147 261 

Walthall   v.   Walthall,   42    Ala.   450 433 

Wambersie  v.  Orange  etc.  Soc,  84  Va.  453 331 

Wanser  v.  Hoos,  60  N.  J.  L.  525 606 

Ward  v.  Flood,  48  Cal.  36 703,  730,  731 

Ward  v.  Hubbard,  62  Tex.  559 399 

Ward  v.  Maryland,  12  Wall.  427 

82,  83,  85,  104,  138,  139,  452,  572,  574,  576,  684,  702 

Ward  v.  Race  Horse,  163  U.  S.  514 593 

Ward  v.  Thompson,  22  How.  333 538 

Wardlaw  v.  Buzzard,  15  Rich.  158 408,  414 

Ware  v.  Hylton,  3  Dall.  199 37,  483,  569,  612,  613,  614,   677 

Ware  v.  Wisner,  4  McCrary,  69,  50  Fed.  312 569 

Waring  v.  Clarke,  5  How.  453 101,  534,  536,  537,  540,  670 

Waring  v.  Mayor,   8  Wall.   118 372,  445,   448 

Wormbold  v.  Schlicting,  6  Iowa,  243 90 

Warner   v.   People,   2   Denio,   272 290 

Warner  v.  Sauk  Co.,  20  Wis.  494 90 

Warner  v.  The  Uncle   Sam,  9   Cal.   697 610 

Warren  v.  Commonwealth,  37  Pa.  St.  45 261 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  885 

Warren   v.   Mayor,   22   Iowa,   351 303 

Warren  v.  Shook,  91  U.   S.   712 87 

Warren  County  v.  Cowen,  60  Miss.  876 315,  316 

Warren  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Etna  Ins.  Co.,  2  Paine,  501 73,  433,  568,  572 

Washburn,  In   re,   4  Johns.   Ch.   106 587 

Washburn   v.   Franklin,   35   Barb.    599 394 

Washburn  v.  Ripley,  CI.  &  H.  682 46,  69 

Washington   v.   Eaton,  4   Cr.   C.   C.   352 207 

Washington  v.  State,  75  Ala.  5S2 252,   259 

Washington  etc.  Co.  v.  District  of  Columbia,  172  U.  S.  367 207 

Washington  Br.  Co.  v.  State,  18  Conn.  64 332,  334,  337,  371 

Washington  Home  v.  Chicago,  15  111.  423 332 

Washington  etc.   Turnpike   Co.   v.   Baltimore  etc.  E.  E.,  10   Gill 

&   J.    392 362 

Washington  University  v.  Rouse,  8  Wall.  439 278,  301,  340,  349 

Waters-Pierce  Oil  Co.  v.  Texrs,  177  U.  S.  47 144,  373,  382,  577,  708 

Watertown   v.   Mayo,    109   Mass.    315 , lltf 

Watkins,  Ex  parte,  3  Pet.  201 210,  223,  505,  548,  549,  675 

Watkins,   Ex   parte,   7   Pet.    572 207,   549 

Watkins  v.  Glenn,  55  Kan.  417 397,  422 

Watkins  v.  Holman,  16  Pet.  62 30 

Watson,  In  re,  15  Fed.  512 140,  574,  576 

Watson   v.  Bourne,   10   Mass.   337 167,   169 

Watson  v.  Chicago  etc.  Ey.  Co.,  46  Minn.  321 428 

Watson  v.  Citizens'  Sav.  Bank,  5  Eich.  159 165 

Watson  v.  Jones,  13  Wall.  720 512 

Watson  v.  Mercer,  8  Pet.  88 223,  226,  227,  229,  253,  273,  274,  391 

Watson  Seminary  v.  Pike  County  Court,  149  Mo.  67 341,  377 

Watts  v.  Everett,  47  Iowa,  269 400 

Wave,  The,  2  Paine,  143 536 

Wayman  v.  Southard,  10  Wheat.  50 78,  79,  219,  287 

Weaver  v.  Fegley,  29  Pa.  St.  27 172 

Weaver  v.   Dapsley,  43   Ala.   224 430 

Weaver  v.  Maillot,   15  La.  Ann.   397 424 

Weaver  v.  Mississippi  etc.  Co.,  24  Minn.  539 654 

Webb   v.   Den,   17   How.   578 274 

Webb  v.  Dunn,  8  Fla.  724 99,  447,  451 

Webb  v.  Moore,  25  Ind.  4 433 

Webb  v.  New  York,  79  Fed.  622 582 

Weber  v.  Board  of  Harbor  Commrs.,  18  Wall.  66 129,  595 

Weber  v.  Virginia,  103  U.  S.  347 86,  179,  180,  186 

Webster   v.   Bell,    68   Fed.    185 107 

Webster  v.  Cambridge  Seminary,  78  Md.  204 378 

Webster  v.  Eeid,  11  How.  437 613,  668,  669 

Webster  v.  Eose,   6  Heisk.   93 385,   397,  413 

Webster  v.   Seymour,   8    Vt.   135 211 


886  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Weeber  v.  United  States,  62  Fed.  741 176 

Wehlitz,  In  re,  16  Wis.  447 155 

Weil    v.    State,   46    Ohio    St.    450 394 

Weimer,  Ex  parte,  8  Biss.  325 479 

Weimer   v.    Bunbury,   3   Mich.    208 625 

Weir  v.  Morden,  125  IT.  S.  108 184 

Weisner  v.  Village  of  Douglass,  64  N.  Y.  92 653 

Welch   v.   Bowen,   103   Ind.   252 726 

Welch  v.  Cook,  97  U.  S.  543 206,  301,  349 

Weleh   v.  Wadsworth,  30   Conn.   149 392,   394,  429,  430 

Wellington  v.  Wellington  Twp.,  46  Kan.  213 312 

Wellman  v.  Chicago   etc.  Ry.,   83   Mich.   611 339,   365 

Wells,  Ex  parte,  18  How.  311 476,  477,  478,  549 

Wells  v.  Bobb,  9  Bush,  32 91 

Wells  v.  Central  Vermont  R.  R.,  14  Blatchf.  430 299 

Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.  v.  Crawford  Co.,  63  Ark.  588 134 

Wells,  Fargo  v.  Oregon  Ry.,  8  Saw.  616,  15  Fed.  573 363,  360 

Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.  v.  Van  Sickle,  6  Nev.  46 91 

Welton  v.   Missouri,  91  U.   S.   275 

95,  96,  98,  99,  100,  101,  104,  105,  111,  138,  140,  576 

Wendell,  In  re,  19  Johns.   153 166,  417,  421 

Wendell  v.  Lebon,  30  Minn.  238 164,  417,  420 

Wendover  v.  Lexington,  15  B.   Mon.   258 298 

Wesley  v.   Eells,   177   U.   S.   370 245,   247 

West   v.    Creditors,   4   Rob.    (La.)    92 158 

West  v.  Sansom,  44  Ga.  295 396 

West  Chicago  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  178  111.  344.  . 324 

West  End  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Atlanta  St.  R.  R.  Co.,  40  Ga.  151 382 

Western  Paving  Co.  v.  Citizens'  R.  R.,  128  Ind.  529 324 

Western   Union  Tel.   Co.  v.  Alabama  Board    etc.,   132  U.   S.  475 

131,  134 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Ann  Arbor  R.  R.  Co.,  178  U.  S.  250 520 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  City  Council,  56  Fed.  422 136 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Commonwealth,  110  Pa.  St.  405 136 

Western  Union  Tel.   Co.   v.   Eubanks,   100   Ky.   591 121 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Ferris,    103    Ind.    91 122 

Western  Union  Tel.   Co.  v.  Fremont,  39  Neb.   706 136 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Fremont,  43  Neb.  499 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Howell,  95  Ga.  184 122 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  James,  162  U.  S.  654 94,  114,  122 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Massachusetts,  125  U.  S.  549 85,  144 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Mayer,  28  Ohio  St.  521 82,  136,  708 

Western  Union  Tel.   Co.  v.  Mayor,  38  Fed.  560 177 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Missouri,  190  U.  S.  412 133 

Western  Union  Tel.   Co.  v.  New  York,  38  Fed.   552 724 

Western   Union   Tel.   Co.  v.  Norman,  77  Fed.   23 137 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Pendleton,  122  U.  S.  356 95,  122 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  887 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Pendleton,  95  Ind.   12 102,  443,  719 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania,  128  U.  S.  39 136 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Reynolds,  100  Va.  459 136 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  State,  80  Ala.  273 136 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Taggart,  163  U.  S.  18 83,  135,  137 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Texas,  105  U.   S.  460 135 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Tyler,  90  Va.  297 122,  136 

Westervelt    v.    Gregg,    12    N.    Y.    202 643 

Westervelt  v.  Lewis,  2   McLean,  511 564 

Westheider  v.  Wabash  E.  R.  Co.,  115  Fed.  S40 530 

Weston  v.  Charleston,  2  Pet.  465 81,  85,  89,  91,  92,  277,  678,  680 

Weston   v.   Sampson,   8   Cush.   347 130 

Weston  v.  State,  63  Ala.   155 632 

West  Publishing  Co.  v.  Lawyers'  Co-op.  etc.  Co.,  64  Fed.  364 182 

West  River  Bridge  Co.  v.  Dix,  6  How.  531 

283,  332,  341,  651,  652,  657 

West  Savings  Fund  v.  Philadelphia,  31  Pa.  St.  175 

318,328,385,398 

West  Virginia  etc.  R.  R  v.  Gibson,  94  Ky.  347 661 

West  Wisconsin  R.  R  v.  Supervisors,  93  U.  S.  598 300,  349,  375 

Wetherbee   v.  Johnson,  14  Mass.   412 672 

Weyerhaueser  v.   Minnesota,   176  U.   S.   555 715 

Weymouth  etc.  Fire  Dist.  v.  Norfolk  County  Commrs.,  108  Mass. 

142 312 

Wharf  Case,  The,  3   Bland,   361 455 

Whallon   v.   Bancroft,  4  Minn.   109 663 

Wharton  v.  Wise,  153  U.   S.  173 36,   450,  451,  457 

Wheat  v.  State,  Minor,  199 399,  400,  433 

Wheaton  v.  Peters,  8  Pet.   661 32,   182 

Wheelan  v.  United  States,  7  Cr.  112 670 

Wheeler  v.  Jackson,   137   U.   S.   255 406 

Wheeler  v.  Smith,  9  How.  78 677 

Wheeles  v.  St.  Louis,  180  U.  S.  382 529 

Wheeling  Br.  etc.  Co.  v.  Steel  etc.  Co.,  41  W.  Va.  743 342 

Wheeling  etc.  Bridge  Co.  v.  Wheeling  Bridge  Co.,  138  U.  S.  292.  .   335 

Wheelock  v.  Leonard,  20  Pa.  St.  440 '. igy 

Whelan  v.  Railroad  Co.,  35  Fed.  859 187 

Whilder   v.    State,   25    Ga.    396 636 

Whipple   v.   Farrar,   3   Mich.   436 428 

Whitaker  v.  Haley,  2  Or.  128 91 

Whitaker  v.  The  F.  Lorents,  29  Fed.  Cas.  954 112 

Whitbeck  v.  Mercantile  Bank,  127  U.  S.   199 94 

White,  In   re,   55   Fed.   57 582,   587,   588 

White,  Ex  parte,  49  Cal.  433 586 

White  v.  Burnley,  20  How.  250 563 

White  v.  Cannon,  6  Wall.  443 .  . 241,  685 

White   v.   Commonwealth,    4   Binn.    418 511 


888  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

White  v.  Crawford,  84  Pa.  tt.  433 414 

White  v.  Hart,  13  Wall.  646 

195,  240,  241,  263,  281,  604,  605,  685,  693 

White  v.  Railroad  Co.,  14  Barb.  559 371,  376 

White  v.  McKee,  19  La.  Ann.  Ill 615 

White  v.  Shanklin,  19  W.  Va.  583 285 

White  v.  Toledo  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  79  Fed.  135 79 

White   v.    Wayne,    Charlt.    194 259 

White  v.  White,  5  Birb.  474 266,  286 

White  v.  Wilkins,  24  Me.  299 429 

White  River  Turnpike  Co.  v.  Vermont  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  21  Vt.  590.  . 

342,  362 

Whites   v.   Po!k,   36   Tex.   628 243 

White's  Bink  v.  Smith,  7  Wall.  655 106 

White's  Creek  Turnpike  Co.  v.  Davidson  Co.,  3  Tenn.  Ch.  396..  362 

Whitford  v.  State,  24  Tex.  App.  489 633 

Whitman  v.  Boston  etc.   Co.,   85  Mass.   138 659 

Whitney  v.  New  York,  6  Abb.  N.  C.  329 319 

Whitney  v.  Robertson,  124  U.  S.  194 484,  613 

Whitney  v.  Sheboygan,  25   Wis.   207 383 

Whitney  v.  Stow,  111  Mass.  368 312 

Whitney   v.    Whiting,    35   N.   H.    466 169 

Whittemore  's    Case,   41st    Cong 64 

Whitwell  v.  Barbier,  7  Cal.  54 56-i 

Wick  v.  The  Samuel  Strong,  6  McLean,  587 537 

Wicke  v.  Ostrum,  103  U.  S.  469 184 

Wickelhausen  v.  Willett,  10  Abb.  Pr.   164 62 

Wickersham   v.  Johnston,   104   Cal.   414 568 

Wickliffe   v.   Eve,   17   How.   470 528 

Wieland  v.  Shillock,  24  Minn.  345 429 

Wigfall's  Case,  Taft,  199 64 

Wiggins  Ferry  Co.  v.  Chicago  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  3  McCrary,   609,   11 

Fed.    381 564 

Wiggins  Ferry  Co.  v.  East  St.  Louis,  107  U.  S.  365 

81,  117,  132,  145,  453 

Wiggins  Ferry  Co.  v.  East  St.  Louis,  102  111.  594 138 

Wilbur's  Estate,  In  re,   8  Wash.   35 157 

Wilbur   v.    Gilmore,   21   Pick.    250 428 

Wilburn   v.   McCalley,   63   Ala.   436 659 

Wilch  v.  Phelps,  14  Neb.  134 171> 

Wilcox's   Case,   Rep.    3001,    56th    Cong.,    2d    Sess 41 

Wilcox   v.   Hemming,   58    Wis.    144 726 

Wilcox  v.   Jackson,   13   Pet.   513 460,   596,  597 

Wilcox  v.  Luco,   118   Cal.   642 498,  544 

Wilcox   v.   Nolze,   34   Ohio   St.   520 580 

Wilder  v.  Chicago  etc.  R.  R.  Co.,  70  Mich.  385 78 

Wilder  v.  Lumpkin,  4  Ga.  209 257,  273,  430 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  889 

Wiley  v.  Parmer,   14  Ala.   627 576 

Wilkens    v.    State,    113    Ind.    514 718 

Wilkerson  v.  Utah,  99  U.  S.  130 600 

Wilkes  v.  Dinsman,  7  How.  127 214,  502 

Wilkinson  v.  Leland,  2  Pet.  657 30,  273,  274,  646,  647 

Willamette  Iron  Br.  Co.  v.  Hat.h,  125  U.  S.  12 114,  595 

Willamette  Valley,  The,  62   Fed.   296 498 

Willard   v.   Harvey,   24   N.   H.    344 275 

Willard    v.    Longstreet,    2    Doug.    175 425 

Willard  v.  Presbury,  14   Wall.   680 206 

William  Bogaley,   The,   5   Wall.   406 194 

Williams  v.  Bank  of  Michigan,  7  Wend.   553 524 

Williams  v.  Benedict,   8   How.    107 523 

Williams  v.  Bennett,  1  Tex.  Civ.  App.  506 156 

Williams  v.  Bruffy,  96  U.  S.  188.  .  .166,  240,  242,  243,  244,  281,  576,  685 

Williams  v.  Commonwealth,  78  Ky.  92    635 

Williame   v.   Duanesburgh,    66    N.   Y.    137 275 

Williams  v.  Fears,  179  U.  S.  278,  21  S.   Ct.   128 117,  143 

Williams  v.  Gaylord,  186  U.  S.  164 143,  500,  577 

Williams  v.  Guiguard,   2   How.    (Miss.)    724 169 

Williams  v.  Haines,  27  Iowa,  254 433,  436 

Williams  v.  Hert,  110  Fed.  166 628,  665 

Williams    v.    Hintermeister,    26    Fed.    890 108 

Williams  v.  Milwaukee  etc.  Assn.,  79  Wis.  521 274 

Williams  v.   Mississippi,   170   U.   S.   219 703,  739 

Williams   v.   Norris,   12   Wheat.    117 309 

Williams  v.  Paine,   169   U.   S.   79 273,  274 

Williams  v.  Planters '  Bank,  12  Bob.  125 357 

Williams  v.  State,  13  Tex.  App.   285 635 

Williams  v.  State,  23  Tex.  287 334 

Williams  v.  Suffolk  Ins.  Co.,   13  Pet.  420 462,  502 

Williams  v.  Supervisors,  122  U.  S.  164 275 

Williams  v.   United   States,   1   How.   29S 460 

Williams  v.  Waldo,  4  111.   264 404,   437 

Williams  v.  Wickerman,  44  Mo.  484 656 

Williams  v.  Wingo,  177  U.  S.  604 334 

Williamson  v.  New  Jersey,  130  U.  S.  199 310,  311 

Williamson  v.  Suydam,  6  Wall.   738 433 

Williar  v.  Baltimore  etc.  Assn.,  45  Md.  546 499 

Willis  v.  Miller,  29  Fed.  238 305 

Willis  v.  State,  24  Tex.  App.  586 637 

Willson  v.  Blackbird  Creek  etc.  Co.,  2  Pet.  252 114,  684 

Wilmington  Hosiery  Co.,  In  re,  102  Fed.   808 164 

Wilmington  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Alsbrook,  146  U.  S.  293 300 

Wilmington  etc.  R.  R.  v.  King,  91  U.  S.  5 386,  388,  437 

Wilmington  R.  R,  v.  Reid,  13  Wall.  i!64 299,  349,  350,  352,  363 

Wilshire,   In   re,   103    Fed.    620 723 


890  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Wilson,  Ex  parte,  114  U.  S.  423 29,  173,  549,  628,  629,  675 

Wilson,  Ex  parte,  39  Tex.   Or.   638 640 

Wilson,   In   re,   140   U.   S.    577 147,  630 

Wilson,  In  re,  19  D.  C.  341 142 

Wilson   v.   Beyers,   5  Wash.   303 726 

Wilson  v.  Brown,  58  Ala.   65 409,  412 

Wilson  v.   Burkman,   13   Minn.   441 199 

Wilson  v.  City  Bank,  17  Wall.  487 158 

Wilson  v.  Eureka  City,  173  U.  S.  37 724 

Wilson  v.   Gaines,   103   U.   S.   421 302,  351 

Wilson  v.  Hardesty,  1  Md.  Ck.  68 273,  391,  394,  430 

Wilson  v.  Hawthorne,  14  Colo.  533 562 

Wilson  v.  Iseminger,  185  U.  S.  62 406,  407 

Wilson  v.  Kansas  City  etc.  Ey.  Co.,  60  Mo.  198 113 

Wilson  v.   Lambert,   168   U.  S.   614 206 

Wilson  v.  Martin- Wilson  etc.  Co.,  151  Mass.  520 178 

Wilson   v.   Mason,   1    Cr.   45 457,  550 

Wilson  v.  Matthews,  32  Ala.   332 421 

Wilson  v.   Polk  County,   112  Mo.   126 320 

Wilson   v.   Eiddle,   123   U.  S.   608 669 

Wilson  v.  Rousseau,  4  How.  680 186 

Wilson  v.   Seligman,  144  TJ.   S.   44 511,   562 

Wilson  v.  Simon,   91  Md.  1 267,  426,  427 

Wilson    v.    Standefer,    184   U.   S.   409 405 

Wilson  v.  Wills  Valley  R.  R.  Co.,  33  Ga.  466 373 

Wilson  v.  Wall,    6    Wall.    89 520 

Wilson    v.    Wall,    34    Ala.    288 614 

Wilson  v.  Wold,   21   Wash.   398 424,   425 

Wilson,  The,  v.  United  States,  1  Brock.  423 96,  105,  108,  221 

Wilton  v.  Weston,  48   Conn.   325 726 

Wimberly  v.  Mayberry,  94  Ala.  240 426 

Winans    v.    Dunsmead,    15    How.    341 185 

Winchester   v.   Corinna,   55   Me.   9 198 

Winchester  etc.  Road  Co.  v.  Croxton,  98  Ky.  744 338 

Windham   v.    Portland,    4    Mass.    384 312 

Windsor  v.   McVeigh,   93   U.   S.   284 518 

Wingard  v.  United  States,  141  U.  S.  201 516 

Winn   v.   Bowles,   6   Munf.   23 401 

Winona    v.    Whipple,    24    Minn.    61 316 

Winona  etc.  Land  Co.  v.  Minnesota,  159  U.  S.  529.  .  .275,  300,  348,  715 

Winona  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Blake,  94  U.  S.  180 365 

Winona  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  County  of  Deuel,  3  Dak.  Ter.  13 289 

Winona  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Plainview,  143  U.  S.  393 285 

Winona  etc.  R.  R.  v.  Waldron,  11  Minn.   515 368 

Winslow    v.    People,    117    111.    152 404 

Winston    v.    McCormick,    1    Ind.    56 408 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  891 

Winter   v.   Dickerson,   42   Ala.   98 225,  474 

Winter  v.  Jones,  10  Ga.  196 288,  292,  294,  383 

Winter  v.  Muskogee  E.  R.  Co.,  11  Ga.  45 372 

Wintz  v.   Girardey,  31   La.   Ann.   386 448 

Wiscart    v.    D'Auchy,    3    Dall.    328 547 

Wisconsin  v.  Pelican  Ins.  Co.,  127  U.  S.  288 526,  527,  545,  561 

Wisconsin  R.  R.  v.  Price  County,  133  U.  S.  504 84,  211 

Wisconsin  River  Imp.  Co.  v.  Manson,  43  Wis.  255 103 

Wise    v.    Rogers,    24    Gratt.    169 265 

Wistar   v.   Foster,   46   Minn.    484 392 

Withers  v.  Buckley,  20  How.   84 37,   607,   619,   627 

Witkowski's  Case,  7  Ct.  of  CI.  393 477,  508 

Witt  v.  Follett,  2  Wend.  458 418 

Witter  v.  Mississippi  etc.  R.  R.,  20  Ark.  463 372 

Woart   v.   Winnick,   3   N.   H.   473 228,   409 

Woessner   v.   Cottam,   19   Tex.   Civ.    App.    615 144 

Wofford   v.   Gaines,   53   Ga.   487 409 

Wolcott    v.    People,    17    Mich.    68 135 

Wolf,   In    re,   27   Fed.    606 207 

Wolfe  v.  Hartford  Life  etc.  Ins.  Co.,  148  U.  S.  389 529 

Wolfe   v.  Underwood,  91   Ala.  526 332 

Wolff  v.  New  Orleans,  103  U.  S.  367 288,  317,  328 

Wolf  kill  v.  Mason,  16  Abb.  Pr.  221 415 

Wong  Him  v.  Callahan,  119  Fed.  381 205 

Wong  Wing  v.  United  States,  163  U.  S.  234 628 

Wong  Yung  Quy,  6  Saw.  442 109,  126,  446 

Wood,  In   re,   140   U.   S.   289 513 

Wood 's   Case,   15   Ct.   of   CI.   151 489 

Wood's  Case,  18  Ct.  of  CI.  761 490 

Wood  v.  Augustins,  70  Vt.   640 561 

Wood  v.   Brady,   150   U.   S.    22 270 

Wood  v.  Butler,   6   Allen,   516 90 

Wood  v.  Child,  20  111.   209 399,  416 

Wood  v.   City  of  New  York,  34  How.  Pr.   501 414 

Wood  v.  Dolbey,  19  Blatchf,  215,  7  Fed.  477 184 

Wood   v.   Fitzgerald,   3    Or.    576 480 

Wood  v.  Kennedy,    19   Ind.    68 404 

Wood  v;  Malin,   16   N.   J.   L.   209 169,  567 

Wood  v.  New  York,  29  N.  Y.  Sup.  Ct.  463 327 

Wood  v.  New   York,    6   Robt.   462 436 

Wood  v.  Peters,  Mobley,   79 41 

Wood  v.  Wagnon,  2   Cr.  9 529 

Wood  v.  Wood,  14  Rich.  148 385,  401,  414,  433 

Woodbridge    v.    Wright,    3    Conn.    526 169,  170 

Woodbury   v.    Grimes,    1    Colo.    100 220,    268,  42G 

Woodfin   v.   Hopper,    4   Humph.    21 398,  402,  419 

Woodfin   v.   Slader,  Phill.    (N.   C.)    24)0 436 


892  Table  of  Cases  Cited. 

Woodford  v.  Union  Bank,  3  Cold.  498 370 

Woodhull  v.  Wagner,  Baldw.  296 167,  169,  398,  402,  419,  567 

Woodman  v.  Kilbourne  Mfg.  Co.,  1  Abb.  U.  S.  163 114 

Wood  Paper  Co.  v.  Heft,  8  Wall.  336 521 

Woodruff  v.  Mississippi,   162  U.   S.   299 246,   250 

Woodruff  v.  North   Bloomfield   G.    M.    Co.,   9    Saw.    508,   18    Fed. 

783 654 

Woodruff  v.  Parham,   8   Wall.    131 87,  138,   444,  576 

Woodruff  v.  Scruggs,   27    Ark.    26 393,  397 

Woodruff  v.  State,  3  Ark.  285 282,  283,  284,  389,  390 

Woodruff  v.  Tilley,    25     Ark.    309 437 

Woodruff  v.  Trapnall,  10  How.  190 246,  250,  35o,  356,  397,  398,  400 

Woods  v.  Buie,  o  How.    (Miss.)     2S5 402,   433,  434 

Woodson    v.    Murdock,    22    Wall.    369 27 

Woodward  v.  Commonwealth,  9  Ky.  Law    Rep.   670 708 

Woodward   v.   Woodward,   87   Tenn.    648 682 

Woodworth  v.  Rogers,  3  Wood.  &  M.  135 670 

Woolen  v.  Banker,  2  Flipp.  33 179 

Wooley  v.  Butler,  1  Bank.  L.  T.  35 66 

Wooley  v.  Watkins,  2  Idaho,  585 252,  259 

Wooster  v.  Plymouth,  62  N.  H.  208 310 

Worcester  v.  Georgia,  6  Pet.  557 

37,  38,  147,  148,  149,  151,  483,  533,  594,  612 

Worcester  County,  In   re.  102  Fed.  808 164 

Work  v.  State,  2  Ohio  St.  296 551 

Workmeister  v.  Springer  Lith.  Co.,  63  Fed.   810 ISO 

Works   v.    Carrington,   34   Ohio    St.    64 583,   585,    586 

Works  v.  Emigrant  Co.,  164  U.  S.  576 310 

Wormley    v.    Hamburg,    40    Iowa,    22 436 

Worsham  v.  Stephens,  66  Tex.   89 434 

Worth  v.  Wilmington  etc.  R.  R.,  89  N.  C.  291 349 

Worthington    v.    Jerome,    5    Blatchf .    279 169 

Worthington   v.   Scribner,   109   Mass.   487 ...» 459 

Worthy  v.   Barrett,   63   N.   C.   199 735 

Wright,   In    re,   3   Wyo.    78 261,  710 

Wright  v.  Davidson,   181   U.    S.    379 206 

Wright  v.  Deacon,    5    Serg.    &    R.    62 591 

Wright  v.  Sill,   2   Black,   544 352 

Wright  v.  Stills,    27    Ind.    341 91 

Wright  v.  United   States,  158  U.   S.   238 488 

Wrisley  v.  Rouse  Soap  Co.,  90  Fed.  6 505 

Wrought  Iron  Range  Co.  v.  Carver,  118  N.  C.  328 140 

Wulzen  v.  Board  of   Supervisors,  101   Cal.   15 650 

Wunderle  v.  Wunderle,  144  111.   54 481 

Wurts   v.   Hoagland,   114   U.   S.    615 729 

W.  W.  Carghill  Co.  v.  Minnesota,  180  U.  S.  469 731 

Wyandotte  v.  Corrigan,  35  Kan.   24 341 


Table  of  Cases  Cited.  893 

Wyandotte  v.  Drennan,  46  Mich.  480 290 

Wyeth  v.  Eichardson,  10   Gray,   240 584 

Wyllie,  In   re,   2   Hughes,  453 161 

Wyman   v.   Campbell,   6   Port.   237 561 

Wyman   v.    Mathews,    53    Fed.    680 510 

Wyman  v.  Mitchell,  1  Cow.  316 109,  285 

Wyneham   v.    People,    13    N.    Y.    392 639,  646 

Wynne,    In    re,    1    Chase,    227 73 

Wynne  v.  Wright,  4  Dev.  &  B.  19 445,  447 

Wyoming  National  Bank  v.  Brown,  7  Wyo.  494 285.  286 

Yancey,  In  re,  28  Fed.  445 492 

Yang  Sing,  In  re,  13  Saw.  485,  36  Fed.  439 226,  227,  251 

Yarborough,  Ex  parte,  110  U.  S.  665 28,  39,  56.  57,  739 

Yarmouth   v.   North  Yarmouth,   34  Me.   418 292,   330 

Yazoo  etc.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Adams,  180  U.  S.  22 306,  34S 

Yeatman   v.   Foster   Co.,   2   N.   Dak.   421 426 

Yeaton  v.  Bank,  21  Gratt.  593 371 

Yell 's   Case,   1   Bart.   92 46,     70 

Yerger,  Ex  parte,  8  Wall.  85 28,  187,  198,  503,  542,  549 

Yeungling  v.   Schill,   20   Blatchf.   452 179 

Yick  Wo  v.  Hopkins,  118  U.  S.  38 705,  706,  727,  728 

York   v.   Texas,   137   U.   S.    20 683,  710 

Young,    Ex    parte,    36    Or.    247 119 

Young  v.  Bank  of  Alexandria,  4  Cr.  384 207 

Young   v.    Blaisdell,    138   Mass.    345 299,    344,  441 

Young  v.   Harrison,   6   Ga.   156 384,  659 

Young  v.  McKenzie,  3  Ga.  31 395,  628,  646,  652,  659 

Young   v.    Oregon,    1    Or.    213 400j 

Young  v.  United  States,  97  U.  S.  60 J94 

Youngblood    v.    Birmingham,    95    Ala.    526 698 

Youngs   v.   Hall,  9   Nev.   212 327 

Yung  Jon,  Ex  parte,  28  Fed.  308 718 

Zabrinskie  v.  Railroad   Co.,   18  N.  J.  Eq.   186 370 

Zambrino  v.  Galveston  etc.  Ry.  Co.,  38  Fed.  453 42 

Zane  v.  The  President,  4  Wash.  C.  C.  453 537 

Zanesville  v.  Gas    Co.,  47  Ohio  St.  1 719 

Zeigenf uss,  In  re,  2  Ired.  463 162 

Zeigler  v.  S.  N.  R.  R.  Co.,  58  Ala.  594 659 


INDEX. 


Abolishment, 

of  slavery,  Amdt.  art.  13,  sec.  1,  p.  692. 
Absentee, 

from  House,  provisions  concerning,  art.  1,  sec.  5,  cL  1,  p.  58. 
Acceptance, 

of  office  or  gifts  from  foreign  potentate,  art.  1,  sec.  9,  cl.  8,  p.  238. 
Accounts  of  public  money, 

to  be  published,  art.  1,  sec.  9,  cl.  7,  p.  236. 
Act  of  Congress, 

passage  of,  pp.  72-75. 

when  to  take  effect,  p.  73. 

power  of  Congress  to  enact,  p.  71  et  seq. 

approval  by  President,  p.  72. 

veto,  p.  75. 

provisions,  when  constitutional,  pp.  610,  611. 
Actions, 

re-examination  of  causes  of,  Amdt.  art.  7,  pp.  668,  672. 

to  what  section  applies,  p.  672. 
Adjournment, 

of  House,  for  want  of  a  quorum,  art.  1,  see.  5,  cl.  1,  p.  58. 

restriction  on  power  of,  art.  1,  sec.  5,  cl.  4,  p.  65. 

when  President  may  adjourn  Congress,  art.  2,  sec.  3,  p.  493. 

Admiralty  and  maritime  jurisdiction, 

where  lodged,  art.  3,  see.  2,  cl.  1,  p.  517. 

interpretation   and  construction,  p.   533. 
Admission, 

of  new  states,  power  of  Congress,  art.  4,  sec.  3,  cl.  1,  p.  593. 

clause  construed,  pp.  593,  594. 
Adoption, 

of  anterior  confederation  debts  and  obligations,  art.  6,  sec.  1,  cL 
1,  p.  608. 

of  state  procedure,  p.  498. 
Advice  and  consent, 

of  Senate,  when  required,  art.  2,  sec.  2,  cl.  2,  p.  481. 

(895) 


896  Index. 

Affirmation.      See  Oath. 

Agreements, 

or  compacts,  not  to  be  entered  into  by  states,  art.  1,  sec.  10,  cl. 

3,  pp.  451,  456. 
right  and  duty  of  protection,  where  lodged,  p.  456. 

See   Contracts. 
Alliance, 

no  state  shall  enter  into  treaty  of,  art.  1,  sec.  10;  cl.  1,  pp.  239, 
240. 

secession  and  confederation  inhibited,  p.  240. 

no  right  of  secession,  pp.  240,  684. 

status   of  seceding  states,  p.  242. 
Alteration, 

of  charter  of  corporation,  state  authority,  p.  369. 

power  may  be  reserved  in  charter,  p.  373. 

exercise  of  reserved  power,  p.  377. 

alteration  by  consent,  p.  371. 
Ambassadors, 

President  may  appoint,  art.  2,  sec.  2,  cl.  2,  p.  481. 

judicial  power  extends  to,  art.  3,  sec.  2,  cl.  2,  p.  542. 

original  jurisdiction  over,  p.  543. 
Amendments, 

to  constitution,  proposal  does   not  require  President 's   approval, 
p.  75. 

when  Congress  shall  propose,  art.  5,  p.  606. 

convention  for,  art.  5,  p.  606. 

to  be  ratified  by  three-fourths  of  the  states,  art.  5,  p.  606. 

power  of  people,  without  limit,  pp.  34,  606. 

what  ones  apply  exclusively  to  United  States  government,  p.  608. 

rules  for  construing,  p.  29.  

of  corporate  charter,  authority  of  legislature,  p.  369. 

power  may  be  reserved  in  charter,  p.  373. 

exercise  of  reserved  power,  p.  377. 
Appeal, 

right  of,  may  by  regulated  by  statute,  pp.  644,  711. 

allowance  of,  to  state  not  ex  post  facto,  p.  262. 
Appellate  jurisdiction, 

of  supreme  court,  art.  3,  sec.  2,  cl.  2,  p.  542. 

clause  construed,  p.  546. 
Appointment, 

and  removal  from  office,  p.  485. 

power  of  executive,  art.  2,  sec.  2,  cl.  2,  pp.  481,  485. 

incompatible  offices,  p.  69. 

senators  and  representatives  cannot  be  appointed  to  civil  office, 
art.  1,  sec.  6,  cl.  2,  p.  69. 


Ixdex.  89? 

Apportionment, 

of  representation  and   direct  taxation,  art.  1,  sec.  2,  cl.  3,  p.  44. 

Repealed,  Amdt.  art.  14,  sec.  2,  p.  734. 
of  representatives  among  the  several  states,   Amdt.  art.   14,  sec. 

2,  p.  734. 
construction  of  original  clause,  pp.  44,  45. 
Appropriate  legislation, 

power  of  Congress,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  18,  p.  212. 
enforcement  of  Thirteenth  Amendment,  art.  13,  sec.  2,  p.  694. 
enforcement  of  Fourteenth  Amendment,  art.  14,  sec.  5,  p.  737. 
enforcement  of  Fifteenth  Amendment,  art.  15,  see.  2,  p.  740. 
Appropriate  means, 

Congress  may  adopt,  p.  213. 
Appropriation, 

for  army,  limited  to  two  years,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  12.  p.  197. 
money  not  to  be  drawn  but  in  consequence  of,  art.  1,  sec.  9,  cl. 

7,  p.  236. 
disbursements  of  public  money  to  be  published,  art.  1,  sec.  9,  cl. 
7,  p.  236. 
Approval, 

bills  to  be  presented  to  President  for,  art.  1,  sec.  7,  cl.  2,  p.  72. 
orders,  resolutions,  etc.,  to  be  approved,  art.  1,  sec.  7,  cl.  3,  p.  75. 
proposed  amendments   to   constitution  need  not   be  presented,  p. 
75. 

Armies, 

appropriations  limited  to  two  years,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  12,  p.  197. 

Congress  to  make  rules  for  government  of,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  14,  p. 
200. 

power  to  raise  and  support,  construed,  p.  197. 

Congress  may  provide  for  trials  by  caurts-martial,  p.  200. 

may  provide  for  common  defense,  art.  1,  sec.  S,  cl.  1,  p.  76. 
Arms, 

right  of  people  to  bear,  Amdt.  art.  2,  p.  622. 

right  construed,  pp.  622,  623. 
Arrest, 

defined,  p.  66. 

privilege  of  members  of  Congress  from,  art.  1,  sec.  6,  cl.  1,  p.  66. 

clause  construed,  pp.  66,  67. 

extent  of  privilege,  p.  67. 
Arsenals, 

exclusive  authority  of  Congress,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  17,  p.  205. 
Articles  of  Confederation, 

a  league  of  friendship,  p.  36. 
Notes  on  Constitution — 57 


898  Index. 

Arts, 

Congress  to  promote,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  8,  p.  178. 

power  defined,  pp.  178,  179. 
Attachment  law, 

when  superseded  by  bankrupt  law,  pp.  162,  163. 
Attainder, 

Congress  cannot  pass  bill  of,  art.  1,  sec.  9,  cl.  3,  p.  226. 

state  shall  not  pass  bill  of,  art.  1,  sec.  10,  cl.  1,  p.  251. 

of  treason  not  to  work  corruption  of  blood,  art.  3,  sec.  3,  cL  2, 
p.   559. 

construction  of  clauses,  pp.  226,  251. 
Attendance, 

of  members  of  Congress  may  be  compelled,  art.  1,  sec.  5,  cl.  1, 
p.  58. 
Authentication, 

of  state  record,  Congress  to  prescribe  manner  of,  art.  4,  sec.  1, 
p.  561. 
Authority, 

of  state  over  judicial  proceedings,  p.  509    et  seq. 

of  executive  over  conquered  territory,  p.  472. 

Authors  and  inventors, 

Congress  to  secure  rights  of,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  8,  p.  178. 
power  defined,  pp.  178,  179. 

Bail, 

excessive,  not  to  be  required,  Amdt.  art.  8,  p.  675. 
Ballot, 

electors  of  President  to  vote  by,  Amdt.  art.  12,  pp.  690,  691. 

when  House  to  choose  President  by,  Amdt.  art.  12,  sec.  1,  pp.  690, 
691. 
Bank, 

state  may  establish,  p.  249. 

may  regulate  issuance  of  notes,  pp.  250,  356. 

may  exempt  from  taxation,  p.  348. 
Banking  corporations, 

charter  a  contract  binding  on  Btate,  p.  355. 

state  may  incorporate,  p.  249. 

liability  of  state  as  stockholder,  p.  245. 

notes  of,  not  bills  of  credit,  p.  245. 
Bankrupt  act, 

effect  of,  on  state  insolvent  laws,  p.  162. 

when     supersedes    insolvent   laws,   pp.   163,   164. 

what  laws  superseded  by,  p.  163. 


Index.  899 

Bankruptcies, 

Congress  to  pass  uniform  laws  on,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  4,  p.  158. 

bankruptcy  defined,  p.  158. 

laws  to  be  uniform,  p.  159. 

power  of  Congress  unlimited,  p.  159. 
Basis  of  representation, 

what  is,  Amdt.  art.  14,  sec.  2,  p.  734. 

when  to  be  reduced,  Amdt.  art.  14,  sec.  2,  p.  734. 
Belligerent, 

may  by  capture  enforce  authority,  p.  195. 

rights  of  during  war,  p.  193. 
Bill  of  attainder, 

Congress  cannot  pass,  art.  .1,  sec.  9,  cl.  3,  p.  226. 

clause  construed,  p.  226. 

states  shall  not  pass,  art.  1,  sec.  10,  cl.  1,  p.  251. 

bill  of  attainder,  what  is,  pp.  226,  251. 
Bills, 

for  raising  revenue,  to   originate  in   House,  art.   1,  sec.   7,   cl.   1, 
p.  71. 

on  passage  of  both  Houses  to  be  presented  to  President,  art.  1, 
see.  7,  cl.  2,  p.  72. 

power  of  President  to  sign  or  disapprove  them,  art.  1,  sec.  7,  cl. 
2,  p.  72. 

two-thirds  of  each  House  may  pass  over  his  veto,  art.  1,  sec.  7, 
cl.  2,  p.  72. 

not  returned  by  President  within  ten  days,  become     law,  unless, 
etc.,  art.  1,  sec.  7,    cl.  2,  p.  72. 
Bills  of  credit, 

Congress  may  issue,  p.  89. 

may  make  them  legal  tender,  p.  90. 

Confederate  notes  are  not,  p.  247. 

states  shall  not  emit,  art.  1,  sec.  10,  cl.  1,  p.  245. 

clause  construed,  pp.  245-248. 

bank  bills  are  not,  p.  247. 
Borrow  money, 

power  of  government,  what   includes,  p.  89. 

state  and  municipal  corporations  may,  p.  246. 
Bounties, 

debt  for,  not  to  be  questioned,  Amdt.  art.  14,  sec.  4,  p.  736. 

to  volunteers,  state  may  give,  p.  198. 

grant  of  not  contract,  p.  291. 

statutes  granting,  construed,  p.  291. 
Branches  of  government, 

separate  and  independent,  p.  38. 


900  Index. 

Breach  of  peace, 

no  privilege  from  arrest  for,  art.  1,  sec.  6,  cl.  1,  p.  66. 

Congress  may  provide  penalty  for,  p.  219. 
Bribery, 

all  officers  liable  to  impeachment,  art.  2,  sec.  4,  p.  495. 
Bridges, 

authority  to  build,  power  conferred  on  Congress,  p.  97. 

power  of  Congress,  when  paramount,  p.  103. 

subject  to  commerce  power,  p.  97. 

grant  of  franchise  a  contract,  p.  258. 

when  state  may  charter,  pp.  112,  358. 

power  of  state  to  tax,  p.  132. 

California, 

apportionment  act  valid,  p.  45. 
Canal  companies, 

state  may  charter,  pp.  112,  113. 

charter  of,  a  contract,  p.  361. 
Candidates, 

who  deemed  elected,  pp.  58,  59. 
Capitation  tax, 

laid  in  proportion  to  the  census,  art.  1,  sec.  9,  cl.  4,  p.  231. 

construction  of  clause,  pp.  231,  232. 
Captures, 

Congress  to  make  rules  for,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  11,  p.  193. 

extent  of  power,  p.  196. 
Causes, 

of  action  at  common  law,  trial  by  jury,  Amdt.  art.  7,  p.  668. 

re-examination  of,  Amdt.  art.  7,  pp.  668,  672. 

trial  by  jury,  p.  668. 

right,  when  does  not  attach,  p.  671. 

waiver  of  jury,  p.  673. 
Ceded  property, 

authority  of  Congress  over,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  17,  p.  205. 

over  District  of  Columbia,  pp.  205-207. 

over  other  places,  pp.   207-211. 

over  sites  for  forts,  arsenals,  etc.,  p.  207. 

extent  of  state  jurisdiction  over  crimes,  p.  210. 

requisites  for  cession,  p.  209. 

Census, 

of  people,  when  to  be  taken,  art.  1,  sec.  2,  cl.  3,  p.  44. 

eighth,  when  took  effect,  p.  45. 

capitation  tax  in  proportion  to,  art.  1,  sec.  9,  cl.  4,  p.  231. 
Certificate, 

to  foreign  corporations  not  a  contract,  p.  297. 

of  election  of  members  to  Congress,  pp.  58,  59. 


Index.  901 

Charter, 

of  private   corporation,  a   contract  with  state,  pp.  332,  341,  355, 

358,  361,  363. 
franchise,  how  construed,  p.  334. 

legislature  cannot  contravene  provisions  of,  p.  332. 
right  to  amend,  alter,  or  repeal,  pp.  369-383. 
includes  laws  defining  its  stipulations,  p.  335. 
to  what  laws  subject  in  case  of  consolidation,  p.  354. 
effect  of  immunity  from  taxation,  p.  347. 
right  of  eminent  domain,  p.  342. 
implied  reservations  in,  p.  335. 

may  be  altered  or  amended  by  assent  of  corporations,  p.  371. 
power  to  alter   or  amend,  may  be  reserved  in,  p.  373. 
power  to  repeal  may  be  reserved,  p.  382. 
exercise  of  reserved  power,  p.  377. 
of  power  to  repeal,  p.  382. 
granted  by  Confederate  states,  valid,  p.  244. 
Cherokee  territory, 

laws  of,  pp.  151,  152. 
Chief  justice, 

to  preside  on  impeachment  of  President,  art.  1,  sec.  3,  cl.  6,  p.  54. 
Chinese, 

state  cannot  discourage  immigration  of,  p.  116. 
Citizens, 

no  other  than,  shall  be  representatives  in  Congress,  art.  1,  sec.  2, 

cl.  1,  p.  42. 
qualifications  necessary  for  senator,  art.  1,  sec.  3,  cl.  3,  p.  53. 
"citizen"  and  "inhabitant"  distinguished,  p.  42. 
inhabitants   of  the  District  of  Columbia  not  citzens  of  state,  p. 

206. 
no  person  but  natural  born  shall  be  President,  art.  2,  sec.  1,  cl. 

5,  p.  467. 
nor  Vice-President,  Amdt.  art.  12,  p.  691. 
privileges  and  immunities  preserved  to,  art.  4,  sec.  2,  cl.  1,  pp. 

569,  572. 
citizens,  who  are,  p.  569. 

privileges  and  immunities  construed,  pp.  572,  702. 
of  other  states,  when  bound  by  state  insolvent  laws,  pp.  118,  119. 
state  rights  as  to  citizens,  p.  702. 
all  persons  born  or  naturalized  are  citizens  of  United  States,  and 

of  the  state,  Amdt.  art.  14,  sec.  1,  p.  696. 
citizens  under  this  amendment,  who  are,  p.   698. 
not  to  be  deprived  of  privileges  or  immunities,  Amdt.  art.  14,  sec. 

1,  p.  696. 
civil  rights,  purpose  of  amendment,  pp.  696,  697. 
not  to  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty,  or  property,  without  due  pro- 
cess of  law,  Amdt.  art.  14,  sec.  1,  pp.  696,  708. 


902  Index. 

Citizens — Continued. 

protection  to  guaranteed,  p.  698. 

equal  protection  of  the  laws,  amendment  construed,  p.  728. 

right  to  vote  shall  not  be  denied  or  abridged,  Amdt.  art.  15,  see. 
1,  p.  738. 

amendment  construed,  pp.  738,  739. 

rights  of,  may  be  protected  by  Congress,  Amdt.  art.  15,  sec.  1,  p. 
738. 
Citizenship, 

does  not  of  itself  give  right  to  vote,  p.  43. 

right  of  suffrage  not  conferred  by  Fifteenth  Amendment,  p.  738. 

what  constitutes,  p.  153. 

effect  of  naturalization,   p.  156. 
Civil  actions, 

trial  by  jury  in,  Amdt.  art.  7,  p.  668. 

right,  when  not  to  attach,  p.  671. 

re-examination  of  causes,  p.  672. 
Civil  officers, 

of  United  States,  removal  by  impeachment,  art.  2,  sec.  4,  p.  495. 
Civil  rights, 

guaranteed  to  citizens  of  the  United  States,  Amdt.  art.  14,  sec.  1, 
p.  696. 

citizens  of  the  United  States,  who  are,  p.  698. 

purposes  of  amendment,  p.  696. 

protection  of  citizens,  pp.  696,  697. 

equal  protection  of  the  laws  not  to  be  denied,  p.  728. 

act  of  Congress,  "Civil  Eights  Bill"  unconstitutional,  p.  737. 

Civil  war, 

when  exists,  p.  201. 

power  of  President  in,  p.  470. 
Classification  of  senators, 

into  three  classes,  art.  1,  sec.  3,  cl.  2,  p.  51. 
Clearance, 

of  vessels  not  required  in  interstate  commerce,  art.  1,  sec.  9,  el. 
6,  p.  234. 
Coin, 

states  not  to  coin  gold  and  silver,  art.  1,  sec.  10,  cl.  1,  pp.  239, 
249. 

not  to  make  anything  but  a  legal  tender,  art.  1,  sec.  10,  cl.  1,  p. 
249. 
Commander-in-Chief, 

of  army  and  navy,  art.  2,  sec.  2,  cl.  1,  p.  469. 

power  as  construed,  p.  469  et    seq. 

authority  over  conquered  territory,  p.  472. 

power  to  proclaim  martial  law,  p.  474. 


Index.  003 

Commerce, 

Congress  shall  have  power  to  regulate,  art.  1,  see.  8,  cl.  3,  p.  95. 

defined,  p.  95. 

what  it  includes,  pp.  95-98. 

includes  transportation  and  navigation,  p.  95. 

construction  of  clause,  pp.  98-100. 

power  of  Congress  construed,  p.  100. 

nature  and  origin  of  power,  p.  98. 

embraces  all  instruments  by  which  carried  on,  p.  105. 

power,  what  it  embraces,  pp.  105-110. 

exclusiveness  of  power  of  Congress,  p.  101. 

subjects  of  regulation,  p.  105. 

power  as  to  passengers,  pp.  96,  116. 

police  power  of  states,  when  may  be  exercised,  p.  117. 

quarantine  laws  as  regulations,  p.  124. 

power  of  state  over  internal  commerce,  p.  111. 

state   authority  over  fisheries,  p.  128. 

state  license  taxes  valid,  p.  138. 

licenses  for  sale  of  goods,  p.  138. 

with  Indians,   power  of   Congress,  p.   146. 

status  of  tribes,  p.  148. 

intercourse  with  Indian  tribes,  p.  149. 

Indian  laws  and  customs,  p.   150. 

no  preference  to  be  given  between  ports  of  states,  art.  1,  sec.  9, 
cl.   6,   p.    234. 

vessels  in  interstate  commerce,  not  to  be  obliged  to  enter  clear, 
etc.,  art,  1,  sec.  9,  cl.  6,  p.  234. 

construction   of  clause,  p.  234. 

state  without  consent  of  Congress  not  to  lay  imposts  or  duties, 
art.  1,  sec.  10,  cl.  2,  p.  444. 

clause  construed,  p.  444  et  seq. 

state  inspection  laws  may  be  passed,  p.  449. 

state  taxation,  when  valid,  p.  449. 

state  without  consent  of  Congress  not  to  lay  any  duty  on  tonnage, 
art.  1,  sec.  9,  cl.  3,  p.  451. 

tonnage  duties  construed,  p.  451  et    seq. 

compensatory  fees,  p.  454. 
Commercial  agent, 

of  foreign  nation,  United  States  marshal  cannot  be,  p.  238. 
Commissions, 

to  fill  vacancies,  to  be  granted  by  President,  art.  2,  sec.  3,  p.  492. 
Common  defense, 

government  to  provide  for,  preamble,  p.  35. 
Common  law, 

trial  by  jury,  Amdt.  art.  7,  see,  1,  p.  668. 

right,  when  not  to  attach,  p.  671. 


904  Index. 

Common  law — Continued. 

re-examination  of  causes,  p.  672. 

construction  of  constitution  by  rules  of  common  law,  p.  29. 
Compact, 

states  not  to  enter  into,  art.  1,  sec.  10,  cl.  3,  pp.  451,  456. 

construction  of  clause,  p.  456. 

constitution  a,  p.  36. 
Compensation, 

of  President,  art.  2,  sec.  1,  cl.  7,  p.  467. 

of  senators  and  representatives,  art.  1,  sec.  6,  cl.  1,  p.  66. 

persons  holding  two  offices  entitled  to,  for  both,  p.  70. 

of  judges  of  supreme  courts,  art.  3,  sec.  1,  cl.  1,  p.  496. 

private  property  not  to  be  taken  without  making,  Amdt.  art.  5. 
sec.  1,  pp.  628,  651. 

construction  of  clause,  p.  646. 
Compulsory  process, 

accused  to  have,  Amdt.  art.  6,  p.  663. 
Concurrent  powers, 

of  states  and  United  States  in  general,  p.  680. 
Condemnation, 

right  of,  p.  650. 

compensation  on,  p.  658. 
Confederation, 

state  not  to  enter  into,  art.  1,  sec.  10,  cl.  1,  p.  239. 

debts  of  original,  assumed,  art.  6,  sec.  1,  p.  608. 

Confederate  notes  in  aid  of  rebellion,  void,  p.  243. 

charter  granted  by,  valid,  p.  244. 

was  but  organized  treason,  p.  242. 

not  a  de  facto  government,  pp.  242,  243. 

all  its  acts  null  and  void,  p.  241. 

bonds  and  notes  of,  void,  p.  243. 

notes  of,  were  not  bills  of  credit,  p.  247. 

validity  of  securities  of,  p.  243. 

contracts   made   in   Confederate   states,  not   in   aid   of  rebellion, 
valid,  pp.  243,  244. 

See  Articles  of  Confederation. 
Confiscation, 

Congress  has  exclusive  power  of,  p.  195. 
Congress, 

legislative  powers  vested  in,  art.  1,  sec.  1,  p.  38. 

of  what  to  consist,  art.  1,  sec.  1,  p.  38. 

election  for  senators  and  representatives,  art.  1,  sec.  4,  cl.  1,  p. 
55. 

construction  of  clause  as  to  elections,  p.  55. 

Congress  to  assemble  at  least  once  a  year,  art.  1,  sec.  4,  cl.  2,  p. 
57. 


Index.  905 

Congress — Continued. 

Congress,  each  House  to  judge  qualifications  of  members,  art.  1, 

sec.  5,  el.  1,  p.  58. 
to  determine  rules  of  its  proceedings,  art.  1,  sec.  5,  el.  2,  p.  62. 
may  expel  a  member,  p.  62. 

to  keep  journal  of  proceedings,  art.  1,  sec.  5,  el.  3,  p.  65. 
adjournment,  restrictions  on  power  of,  art.  1,  sec.  6,  el.  4,  p.  65. 
compensation  of  members,  art.  1,  see.  6,  el.  1,  p.  66. 
privileged  from  arrest,  when,  art.  1,  sec.  6,  el.  1,  p.  66. 
members  ineligible  to  hold  their  offices,  art.  1,  sec.  6,  el.  2,  p.  69. 
revenue  bills,  where  to  originate,  art.  1,  sec.  7,  el.  1,  p.  71. 
manner  of  passage  of  bill,  art.  1,  sec.  7,  el.  2,  p.  72. 
how  passed  without   President's   approval,  art.   1,   see.    7,   el.   2, 

p.  72. 
course  of  proceedings,  p.  75. 
orders,  resolutions,  and  votes,  approval  of  President,  art.  1,  sec. 

7,  el.  3,  p.  75. 

proposal  for  amendment  to  constitution,  p.  75. 
Powers  of  Congress. 
in  general,  pp.  76-79. 
construction  of  grant,  p.  77. 
implied  limitations,  p.  78. 
delegation  of  powers,  p.  79. 
to  lay  and  collect  taxes,  duties,  imposts,  and  excises,  art.  1,  sec. 

8,  el.  1,  pp.  76,  80. 

of  taxation,  extent  of,  p.  80. 

cannot  tax  state  agencies,  p.  83. 

to  borrow  money  on  credit  of  United  States,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  2, 

p.  89. 
implied  power  to  create  a  legal  tender,  p.  90. 
power  to  exempt  national  securities  from  taxation,  p.  91. 
to   regulate  commerce,  art.  1,  see.  8,  cl.  3,  p.  95. 
commerce  defined,  p.  95. 
nature  and  origin  of  power,  p.  98. 
extent  of  power  to  regulate  commerce,  p.  100. 
when  power  to  regulate  is  exclusive,  p.  101 
subjects  of  regulation,  p.  105. 
powers  of  state,  when  concurrent,  p.  101. 
commencement  and  termination  of  power,  p.  110. 
internal  commerce  of  states,  p.  111. 
regulation  of  passenger  traffic,  p.  116. 
police  powers  of  states,  p.  117. 
extent  of  police  powers,  p.  118. 
state  authority  over  game  and  fish,  p.  128. 
effect  on  state  power  to  tax  property,  p.  130. 
state  licenses  for  sale  of  commercial  products,  p.  138. 
traffic   in  original  packages,  p.  145. 


906  Index. 

Congress — Continued. 

power  over  commerce  with  Indians,  p.  146. 

with  Indian  tribes,  p.  148. 

effect  of  Indian  laws  and  customs,  p.  150. 

Congress  to  establish  uniform  rule  of  naturalization,  art.  1,  sec. 

8,  cl.  4,  p.  153. 
persons  entitled,  p.  153. 
power  exclusive,  how  exerted,  p.  154. 
Congress  may  make  laws  on  subject  of  bankruptcies,  art.  1,  sec. 

8,  cl.  4,  pp.  153,  158. 
definitions,  p.   158. 
uniformity,  p.  159. 

extent  of  power  over  subject  of  bankruptcies,  p.  159. 
over  bankruptcies,  exclusive  only  when  exercised,  p.  161. 
state  insolvent  laws,  when  operative,  p.  164. 
when  superseded,  p.  165. 
validity  of  state  insolvent  laws,  p.  165. 
validity  of  discharge   under  state  laws,  p.   166. 
Congress  to   coin   money  and  regulate  its  value,   art.   1,  sec.   8, 

cl.  5,  p.  171. 
"money"  defined,  p.   171. 
to  fix  standard  of  weights  and  measures,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  5,  pp. 

171,  172. 
Congress  to  provide  for  punishment  of  counterfeiting,  art.  1,  sec. 

8,  cl.  6,  p.  173. 
extent   of  power,  p.   173. 
effect  on  states'  power,  p.  174. 

to  establish  postoffices'  and  post-roads,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  7,  p.  175. 
"to  establish,"  what  includes,  p.  175. 
to  promote  progress  of  science  and  useful  arts,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl. 

7,  p.  178. 

power  defined,  p.  178. 

copyrights  to  authors,  p.  180. 

patents  to  inventors,  p.  183. 

to  constitute   inferior  tribunals,  art.  1,   sec.   8,  cl.  9,  p.   187. 

to  define  and  punish  piracies  and  felonies  on  high  seas,  art.  1, 

sec.  8,  cl.  10,  p.  190. 
to  define  and  punish  offenses  against  law  of  nations,  art.  1,  sec. 

8,  cl.  10,  p.  190. 
construction  of  clause,  p.  190. 
"high  seas"  defined,  p.  191. 

to  declare  war,  and  grant  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal,  art.  1, 

sec.  8,  cl.  11,  p.  193. 
to  declare  war,  power  exclusive  in  Congress,  p.  194. 
power,   what    includes,   p.    194. 

to  make  rules  concerning  captures,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  11,  p.  194. 
construction  of  clause,  p.  196. 


Index.  907 

Congress — Continued. 

to  raise  and  support  armies,  restriction  as  to,  art.   1,  sec.   8,  cl. 

12,  p.  196. 
power,  what  includes,  p.  197. 

to  provide  and  maintain  a  navy,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  13,  p.  199. 
extent  of  power,  and  what  it  embraces,  p.  199. 
to  make  rules  for  government  of  forces,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  14,  p. 

200. 
may  provide  for  trials  by  courts-martial,  p.  200. 
to  provide  for  calling  out  militia,  to  execute  laws,  etc.,  art.  1, 

sec.  8,  cl.  15,  p.  201. 
power  construed,  p.  201. 
status  of  militia,  p.  202. 
to  provide  for  organizing,  arming,  etc.,  the  militia,  art.  1,  sec.  8, 

cl.  16,  p.  204. 
reserved  power  of  states  as  to  militia,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  16,  p.  204. 
power,  when  and  how  exercised,  p.  204. 
to    exercise    exclusive   jurisdiction    over    ceded    districts,    art.    1, 

sec.  8,  cl.  17,  p.  205. 
and   over  territory  purchased  from  states  for  forts,  etc.,   art.   1, 

sec.  8,  cl.  17,  p.  205. 
jurisdiction   over   District   of   Columbia,   p.   205. 
exercise  of  power  of  legislation  for  the  Union,  p.  206. 
extent  of  power  over  property  ceded,  pp.  207-210. 
what  power  retained  by  states,  p.  210. 
to  make  laws  necessary  to  carry  its  powers  into  execution,   art. 

1,  sec.  8,  cl.  18,  p.  212. 
extent  of  incidental  powers  of  government,  p.  212. 
discretion  as  to  use  of  means  to  carry  out  powers,  p.  215. 
instances  of  exercise  of  incidental  powers,  p.  215. 
to  revise  and  control  state  imposts  and  duties,  art.  1,  sec.  10, 

cl.  2,  p.  444. 
so  as  to  state  inspection  laws,  art.  1,  see.  10,  cl.  2,  p.  444. 
construction  of  clause,  p.  449. 
may  determine  time  of  choosing  presidential  electors,  art.  2,  sec. 

1,  cl.  4,  p.  466. 
to  legislate  for  government  of  conquered  province,  pp.  598,  599. 
to  incorporate  conquered  territory  in  United  States,  p.  602. 
to   establish  courts  inferior  to   supreme  court,  art.  3,  sec.   1,  p. 

496. 
extent  of  power,  p.  496    et  seq. 

may  define  jurisdiction  of  territorial  courts,  p.  506. 
may  provide  for  removal  of  causes,  p.  513. 
cannot  limit  compensation  or  term  of  judicial  officers,  p.  516. 
may  declare  punishment  for  treason,  art.  3,  sec.  3,  cl.  2,  p.  559. 
power  exclusive  in  Congress,  p.  559. 
may  prescribe   manner   of   authentication   of   acts,   records,   and 

proceedings,  Amdt.  art.  4,  sec.  1,  p.  561. 


908  Index. 

Congress — Continued. 

power  defined,  p.  561. 

exclusive  power  as  to  surrender  of  fugitives  from  labor,  p.  590. 

may  admit  new  states  into  the  Union,  art.  4,  sec.  3,  el.  1,  p.  593. 

restriction  on  power,  art.  4,  sec.  3,  cl.  1,  p.  594. 

to   dispose  of  property  and  make  rules   to  govern   territory,  art. 

4,  sec.  3,  cl.  1,  p.  596. 

to  guarantee   republican   government  to  state,   art.   4,  sec.   4,  p. 

603. 
to  govern  the  territories,  p.  598. 
to  propose  amendment  to  constitution,  when  and  how,  art.  5,  p. 

606. 
laws  of,  are  supreme,  art.  6,  sec.  2,  p.  609. 

may  remove  disability  for  office,  Amdt.  art.  14,  sec.  3,  p.  735. 
to  protect  and  enforce  the  rights  of  citizens,  Amdt.  art.  15,  sec. 

2,  cl.  1,  p.  740. 
to  enforce  amendments,  pp.  694,  737,  740. 
Restrictions  on  poicers  of  Congress. 
as  to  migration  or  importation  of  persons,  art.  1,  sec.  9,  cl.  1,  p. 

221. 
clause  restrictive  of  powers  of  general  government,  p.  221. 
as  to  suspension  of  the  privilege  of  habeas  corpus,  art.  1,  sec.  9, 

cl.  2,  p.  223. 
clause  construed,  p.  225. 
to  pass  no  bill  of  attainder  or  ex  post  facto  laws,  art.  1,  sec.  9, 

cl.  3,  p.  226. 
bill  of  attainder  defined,  p.  226. 
ex  post  facto  laws  defined,  pp.  112,  227. 
to  lay  no  capitation  or  other  direct  tax,  unless,  etc.,  art.  1,  sec. 

9,  cl.  4,  p.  231. 
to  lay  no  tax  or  duty  on  exports  from  a  state,  art.  1,  sec.  9,  cl. 

5,  p.  233. 

to  give  no  preference  to  ports  or  vessels  of  one  state  over  another, 

art.  1,  sec.  9,  cl.  6,  p.  234. 
to    draw   no   money   from   treasury  but   on   appropriation,   art.   1, 

sec.  9,  cl.  7,  p.  236. 
to  grant  no  title  of  nobility,  art.  1,  sec.  9,  cl.  8,  p.  238. 
cannot   limit    compensation    or    term    of    office    of   United    States 

judges,  art.  3,  sec.  1,  p.  516. 
not  to  abridge  the  privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens,  art.  4, 

sec.  2,  cl.  1,  p.  569. 
to  make  no  laws  respecting  the  establishment  of  religion,  Amdt. 

art.  1,  p.  619. 
religion,  right  of  people  secured,  p.  619. 
to  make  no  laws  abridging  the  freedom  of  speech  or  press,  art. 

1,  pp.  619,  620. 
to  make  no  laws   abridging  the  right   of  assembly  and  petition, 

art.  1,  pp.  619,  621. 


Index.  909 

Congress — Continued. 

not  to  infringe  the  right   of  people  to  bear  arms,   Amdt.  art.  2, 

p.  622. 
right  construed,  pp.  622,  623. 

not  to  quarter  soldiers,  except,  etc.,  art.  3,  p.  623. 
not  to  infringe  the  right  of  the  people  as  to  security  of  persons, 

papers,  and  effects,  Amdt.  art.  4,  p.  624. 
construction  of  clause,  pp.  624,  625. 
not   to   infringe   personal  rights   of  the   people,   Amdt.   art.   5,  p. 

627. 
persons   not  to  be   twice  put  in  jeopardy,  Amdt.   art.   5,  p.   627, 

632. 
not  to  be  compelled  to  testify  against  himself,  Amdt.  art.  5,  pp. 

627,  639. 
not  to  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty,  and  property  without  due  pro- 
cess of  law,  Amdt.  art.  5,  pp.  627,  641. 
not  to  be  deprived  of  property  without  compensation,  Amdt.  art. 

5,  pp.  627,  658. 
not  to  abridge  rights  of  parties  accused  of  crime,  Amdt.  art.  6,  p. 

663. 
right  of  trial  by  jury  to  be  preserved,  Amdt.  art.  7,  p.  668. 
to  what  courts  clause  refers,  p.  668. 
right,  when  not  to  attach,  p.  671. 
re-examination  of  causes,  p.  672. 

not  to  require  excessive  bail,  nor  fines,  Amdt.  art.  8,  p.  675. 
rights  retained  by  the  people  not  disparaged  by  grant  to  federal 

government,  Amdt.  art.     9,  p.  676. 
powers   not    delegated   nor   forbidden   to   states   are   reserved   to 

the  states  and  people,  Amdt.  art.  10,  p.  677. 
Connecticut, 

representatives   in   first  Congress,  p.  44. 
Conquest, 

authority  of  executive  over  conquered  territory,  p.  472. 
authority  of  Congress  over  United  States  territory,  art.  4,  sec. 

3,  cl.  2,  pp.  596,  598. 
war  never  presumed  one  of  conquest,  p.  194. 
Conscription, 

Congress  may  authorize,  p.  197. 
state  may  offer  bounty  for  volunteers,  p.  198. 
Consent, 

of  Congress,  required  for  official  to  receive  present,  etc.,  art.  1, 

sec.  9,  cl.  8,  p.  238. 
required  for  state  to  lay  imposts,  etc.,  art.  1,  sec.  10,  cl.  2,  p. 

444. 
or  to  lay  duty  on  tonnage,  art.  1,  sec.  10,  cl.  3,  p.  451. 
or  to  enter  into  agreement  or  compact  with  other  state,  art.  1, 

sec.  10,  cl.  3,  pp.  451,  456. 


910  Index. 

Consent — Continued. 

or  to  engage  in  war,  art.  1,  sec.  10,  cl.  3,  pp.  451,  458. 

to   form  new  state  within  another  state,  art.  4,  sec.  3,  cl.  1,  p. 

593. 
or  for  the  junction   of  states,  or  parts  of  states,  art.  4,  sec.  3, 

cl.  1,  p.  593. 
neither  House  to  adjourn  without  the  consent   of  other,  art.   1, 

sec.  5,  cl.  4,  p.  65. 
of  Senate  required  in  making  treaty,  art.  2,  sec.  2,  cl.  2,  p.  481. 
or  in  appointing  ambassadors,  etc.,  art.  2,  sec.  2,  cl.  2,  p.  481. 
Conspiracy, 

to  burn  ship,  Congress  may  punish  for,  p.  191. 
Constitution, 

construction  generally,  p.   27. 

terms  in,  how  interpreted  p.  31. 

preamble,  purposes  to  be  secured  by,  p.  35. 

people  of  United  States,  who  are,  p.  35. 

to  form  a  moTe  perfect  union,  p.  36. 

a  grant  of  powers,  p.  27. 

creates   a  government   of   enumerated   delegated   powers,   pp.   36, 

37. 
construction   of   terms,   to   be   reasonable,   p.   31. 
all  power  emanates  from  the  people,  p.  36. 
legislative  department  of  government,  art.  1,  pp.  38-238. 
restrictions  on  sovereign  power  of  state,  art.  1,  sec.  10,  pp.  239- 

458. 
executive  department  of  government,  art.  2,  pp.  459-495. 
judicial  department  of  government,  art.   3,  pp.  496-560. 
state   rights,  protection   of,   art.   4,  pp.   561-605. 
amendments,  manner  of  making,  art.  5,  p.  606. 
power  of  people  to  amend,  without  limit,  p.  606. 
first  ten  amendments,  not  restrictions   on  state   governments,  p. 

607. 
genera]  provisions  in,  art.  6,  pp.  608-615. 
ratification  of,  art.  7,  p.  616. 

names  of  states,  and  date  of  ratification,  pp.  616,  617. 
amendments  restrictive  of  powers  of  United  States  government, 

p.  607. 
powers    not   delegated    nor    prohibited   to    states,   are    reserved, 

Amdt,  art.  10,  sec.  1,  p.  677. 
restriction  on  judicial  powers,  Amdt.  art.   11,  p.   686. 
provision   for   election    of   President   and    Vice-President,    Amdt. 

art.  12,  p.  690. 
slavery   prohibited,   Amdt.   art.   13,   p.   692. 
citizens  of  United  States  who  arc,  and  civil  rights  of,  Amdt.  art. 

14,  sec.  1,  p.  696. 


Index.  911 

Constitution — Continued. 

apportionment     of   representation    in     Congress,    Amdt.     art.    14, 
see.  2,  p.  734. 

certain    parties    disqualified   from   holding   office,   Amdt.    art.    14, 
sec.  3,  p.  735. 

payment  of  debts  and  pensions  not  to  be  questioned,  Amdt.  art. 
14,  sec.  4,  p.  736. 

rebel  debts  not  to  be  assumed,  Amdt.  14,  sec.  4,  p.  736. 

political  rights  not  to  be  abridged  on  account  of  race,  color,  etc., 
Amdt.  art.  15,  p.  73S. 
Constitution  of  state, 

a  law  as  to  obligation  of  contracts,  p.  269. 
Construction, 

rules  of,  p.  27. 
Consuls, 

President  may  appoint,  art.  2,  sec.  2,  el.  2,  pp.  481,  485. 

amenable  to  judiciary,  art.  3,  sec.  2,  cl.  2,  pp.  542,  543. 
Contemporary  construction, 

force  of,  p.  28. 
Contempt, 

power  of  House  to  punish  for,  p.  62. 

warrant  to  commit  for,  when  may  be  served,  p.  63.- 
Contracts, 

states   prohibited    to    pass    laws  impairing  obligation   of,   art.   1, 
sec.  10,  cl.  1,  pp.  239,  263. 

inhibition  applies  to  the  states,  and  not  to  Congress,  p.  263. 

valid,  cannot  be  impaired  by  subsequent  legislation,  p.   282. 

laws  merely  retrospective,  not  necessarily  invalid,  p.  273. 

contract   defined,   p.   282. 

with   state,   created   by  legislative   enactment,  p.   288. 

appointment  to  office  not  a  contract,  p.  290. 

executory  within   prohibition,  p.   283. 

when  cannot  be  impaired  by  subsequent  legislation,  p.  386. 

obligation  of,  what  is,  p.  384. 

impairment  of  obligation,  what  is,  p.  386. 

time,  place,  person,  or  thing  to  be  done,  cannot  be  changed  by 
subsequent  statute,  p.  387. 

degree  of  impairment,  p.  389. 

What  no*  a  violation   of   obligation,  p.   391. 

validating  statutes  not  inhibited,  pp.  273,  302. 

retrospective  statutes,  when  valid,  p.  273. 

curative  statutes  valid,  pp.  273,  392. 

state  power  of  eminent  domain,  p.   342. 

remedy  as  a  part  of  obligation,  p.  396. 

change  of  remedy,  when  not  an  impairment,  p.  398. 

what  not  impairment  of  remedy,  p.  402. 


912  Index. 

Contracts — Continued, 
usury  laws,  p.  393. 
statutes  of  limitation,  p.   406. 
exemption  laws,  how  far  valid,  p.  409. 
stay  laws,  when  impair  remedies,  p.  413. 
state  insolvency   laws,   validity   of,   p.   417. 
mortgage  and  redemption  laws,  p.  422. 
lien  laws,  p.  426. 

legislative  authority  over  judicial  procedure,  pp.  428,  433. 
statute  rights  may  be  modified,  p.  266. 
taxation   impairment    of   obligation    of,   p.   276. 
legislature  may  bind   state  by,  p.   288. 
licenses  as  contracts  are  revocable  at  pleasure,  p.  296. 
state  exemption  from  taxation,  as  a  contract,  p.  299. 
state  grants  generally,  as  contracts,  p.  291. 
acceptance  by  state  of  land  grant  a  contract,  p.  291. 
vested  rights  how  far  protected,  p.  264. 
subsequent  statute  cannot  impair  vested  rights,  p.  265. 
corporate  franchises,  charter  construed,  p.  334. 
charter  as  a  contract  with  state,  p.  341. 
may  be  exempted  from  taxation,  p.  347. 
effect   of  exemption  from  taxation,  p.   347. 
bank  corporation,  charter  a  contract,  p.  355. 
bridge  and  ferry  franchises  construed,  p.  358. 
turnpike  and  canal  charters,  p.  361. 
railroad  charter  a  contract,  p.  363. 
immunity  from  taxation,  effect  of,  p.  353. 
state  authority  over  corporations  generally,  pp.   332,  335. 
authority  to  alter  or  amend  charter,  pp.  369,  373. 
reserved  power  in  charter  to  alter  or  amend,  p.  373. 
exercise  of   reserved   power   in   charter,  p.   377. 
power  to  repeal  may  be  reserved,  p.  382. 
municipal  corporation,  charter  not  a  contract,  p.  309. 
legislature  may  authorize  subscription  to  railroad  stock,  p.  320. 
authority  of  legislature  over,  p.  309. 
over  municipal  contracts,  p.  317. 
over  contracts  for  public  improvements,  p.  323. 
over  municipal  liabilities,  p.  326. 
over  municipal  bonds,  p.  328. 
treaty   as   contract,   cannot   devest   Congress   of  its   powers,   pp. 

481,  612. 
maritime  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States  courts  over,  p.  537. 

Contract  with  state, 

how  created,  p.  288. 
state  land  grant,  a  contract,  p.  291. 
cannot  be  impaired  by  subsequent  legislation,  p.  288. 
See   Contracts;   Corporations. 


Index.  913 

Convention, 

for  proposing  amendments,  bow  called,  art.  5,  p.  606. 
Copyrights, 

Congress  may  provide  for,  art.   1,  sec.  8,  cl.  8,  pp.   178,  180. 

power  of  Congress  defined,  p.  178. 

what  may  be  secured  by,  p.  180. 

state  legislation  as  to,  pp.  178,  179,  183. 
Corporations, 

power  of  state  to  tax,  pp.  130,  278,  347. 

amenable  to  police  power  of  state,  pp.  442,  718. 

state  may  impos«  license  tax,  pp.  138,  297. 

as  owner  of  patent,  rights  of,  p.  180. 

charter  a  contract,  cannot  be  impaired  by  state,  p.  332. 

legislative  control  over,  p.  335. 

dissolution   of,    does   not   impair    obligation,    p.    337. 

liabilities  of,  extent  of  state  power  over,  p.  345. 

franchise  of,  construed,  p.  340. 

may  be  exempted  from  taxation,  p.  347. 

state  concluded  by  exemption,  p.  351. 

all  state  agencies  bound,  p.  349. 

charter  of  bank  a  contract,  p.  355. 

charter  of  bridge   or  ferry    company,  p.  358. 

charter  of  turnpike  or  canal  company,  p.  361. 

charter  of  railroad  a  contract,  p.  363. 

immunity  from  taxation  on   charter,  effect   of,  p.   353. 

effect  of  consolidation,  p.  354. 

amendment  or  alteration  of  charter,  p.  369. 

restriction  on  power  of  legislature,  p.  369. 

power  to  alter  or  amend  reserved  in  charter,  p.   373. 

exercise  of  reserved  power  by  state  legislature,  p.  377. 

reservation  of  power  to  repeal,  p.  382. 

charter  of  municipal  corporation  not  a  contract,  p.  309. 

legislature  may  authorize  subscription  to  railroad  stock,  p.  320. 

authority  of  legislature  over  municipal  officers,  p.  315. 

over  municipal  contracts,  p.  317. 

over  municipal  liabilities,  p.  326. 

over  municipal  bonds,  p.  328. 
Costs, 

law  changing  right  to,  valid,  p.  431. 

Counsel, 

party  accused  to  have  right  of,  Amdt.  art.  6,  pp.  663,  667. 
provision  to  apply  to  United  States  courts,  p.  663. 
Counterfeiting, 

Congress  shall  provide  punishment  for,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  6,  p.  173. 
distinguished  from  uttering,  p.  174. 
Notes  on   Constitution — 58 


914  Index. 

Counterfeiting — Continued. 

power  of  Congress  construed,  p.   173. 

power  exclusive,  when  exercised,  p.  174. 

state  power  defined,  p.   174. 
Courts, 

inferior   may   be   constituted   by   Congress,   art.   1,    sec.   8,    cl.   9, 
and  art.  3,  sec.  1,  cl.  1,  pp.  187,  496. 

power  construed,  pp.   187,  504. 

judicial  power  vested  in,  art.  3,  sec.  1,  cl.  1,  p.  496. 

judicial  power,  extent  of,  p.  499. 

term  of  office  of  judges,  art.  3,  sec.  1,  cl.  1,  pp.  496,  516. 

duty  in  construing  constitution,  pp.  28,  30,  500,  610,  611. 
See    Judicial   Power;    Jurisdiction. 
Courts-martial, 

Congress  may  provide  for  trials  by,  p.  200. 
Credit, 

to   be   given   to   public   acts   and    records,    art.     4,   sec.    1,  cl.   1, 
p.  561. 

states  not  to  emit  bills  of,  art.  1,  sec.  10,  cl.  1,  pp.  239,  245. 

definition  of  term,  p.  245. 
Creditor, 

when  bound  by  state  insolvent  laws,  p.   169. 

validity  of  discharge,  p.  165. 

Crimes, 

state  jurisdiction  over,  in  territory  ceded  to  government,  p.  210. 
removal  from  office  for,  by  impeachment,  art.  2,  sec.  4,  p.  495. 
concurrent  jurisdiction  of  state  and  federal  courts,  p.  512. 
trial   of   except  in   impeachments,  to   be   by  jury,  art.   3,   sec.   2, 

cl.  3,  p.  551. 
place   of   trial,   art.   3,   sec.   2,   cl.   3,   pp.   551,   552. 
treason   defined,   and   evidence   required,   art.   3,   sec.   3,   cl.    1,  p. 

555. 
punishment  for  treason,  Congress  may  declare,  art.  3,  sec.  3,  cl. 

2,  p.  558. 
rights  of  accused  party,  presentment  or  indictment,  Amdt.  art.  5, 

pp.  627,  628. 
not  to  be  twice  put  in  jeopardy,  Amdt.  art.  5,  pp.  627,  632. 
not  to  be  compelled  to  be  witness  against  himself,  Amdt.  art.  5, 

pp.  627,  639. 
not  to  be  deprived  of  life  or  liberty  without  due  process  of  law, 

Amdt.  art.  5,  pp.  627,  641. 
construction,  article  securing  personal  rights,  p.  628. 
jeopardy,  what  is,  p.  632. 
witness   against   himself,   p.    639. 
depriving  of  life  and  liberty,  p.  646. 
due  process  of  law,  p.  641. 


Index.  915 

» 

Crimes — Continued. 

mode  of  trial  in  criminal  proceedings,  Amdt.  art.  6,  p.  663. 

prohibitions  in  article  construed,  pp.  663-667. 

excessive  bail,  fines,  or  punishments  forbidden,  Amdt.  art.  8,  p. 
675. 
Cruel  or  unusual  punishments  prohibited,  Amdt.  art.  8,  p.  675. 
Currency, 

legal  tender,  p.  90. 

punishment  for  counterfeiting,  p.  173. 

Debt  of  United  States, 

payment  of  not  to  be  questioned,  Amdt.   art.   14,  sec.  4,  p.  736. 

Congress  has  power  to  pay,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  el.  1,  p.  76. 

under  prior  confederation  assumed,  art.  6,  sec.  1,  p.  608. 
Debts, 

incurred  in   aid   of   insurrection   repudiated,   Amdt.   art.    14,   sec. 
4,  p.  736. 

such  debts  illegal  and  void,  Amdt.  art.  14,  sec.  4,  p.  736. 
Declaration  of  war, 

how  made,  and  effect  of,  p.  193. 

power,   what   includes,   p.   194. 
Defense, 

constitution   adopted   to   insure,   preamble,  p.   35. 

power  of  Congress  to  provide  for,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  1,  p.  76. 

rights  of  accused  in  criminal  prosecutions,  Amdt.  art.  6,  pp.  627, 
628. 
Definitions, 

arrest,  p.  66. 

bankruptcy,  p.  158. 

bill  of  attainder,  pp.  226,  251. 

capitation  tax,  p.  231. 

coin,  p.  249. 

commerce,  p.  95. 

constitution,  p.  27. 

contract,  p.  2S2. 

copyright,    p.    ISO. 

declare,  p.  193. 

direct  tax,  pp.  46,  231. 

duties,  p.  86. 

excises,  p.   86. 

exports,  p.  444. 

ex  post  facto  laws,  pp.  227,  253. 

high  seas,  p.  191. 

impair,  p.  386. 

importation,  p.  222. 

imports,  p.  4-14. 


916  Index. 

I 

Definitions — Continued. 

imposts,  p.  86. 

insolvency,  p.   158. 

invention,  p.  184. 

migration,  p.  222. 

money,  p.  249. 

necessary,  p.  213. 

obligation,  384. 

organizing,  p.   204. 

people  of  United  States,  p.  35. 

person,  p.  727. 

proper,  p.  213. 

regulate,  p.  99. 

state,  p.  239. 

taxation,  p.  80. 

toll,  p.  80. 

uniform,  p.  159. 

uniformity,  pp.  88,  159. 

war,  p.  193. 
Delegated  powers, 

United  States  a  government  of  delegated  powers  only,  p.  677. 
Departments, 

appointment  of  officers  may  be  vested  in,  art.  2,  sec.   2,  el.   2, 
p.  481. 

branches  of  government  distinct  and  independent,  pp.  38,  501. 
See  Government. 
Desertion, 

Congress  may  provide  punishment  for,  p.   199. 

statute   forfeiture   not   a  bill   of  attainder,  p.   227. 
Direct  tax, 

when  and  how  laid,  art.  1,  sec.  9,  cl.  4,  p.  231. 

what  is,  p.  231. 

how  apportioned,  art.  1,  sec.  2,  cl.  3,  p.  44. 

construction  of  clause,  p.  44. 

clause  repealed  by,  Amdt.  art.  14,  sec.  2,  p.  734. 
Disability, 

provisions   in   case   of,   as   to   President,   etc.,   art.   2,  see.   1,   cl. 
6,  p.  467. 

for  office,  p.  735. 

to   hold   office  by  engaging  in  rebellion,   Amdt.   art.   14,   sec.   3, 
p.    735. 

may  be  removed  by  Congress,  Amdt.  art.  14,  sec.  3,  p.  735. 
Discharge, 

in  insolvency,  who  bound  by,  p.   165. 
Discretion, 

of  Congress  as  to  use  of  means  to  carry  out  powers,  p.  212. 

of  President  not  reviewable  by  courts,  p.  461. 


Index.  917 

Disqualification, 

of  senator  or  representative  for  other  office,  art.  1,  sec.  6,  cl.  2, 
p.  69. 

for  membership  of  either  House,  art.  1,  sec.  6,  cl.  2,  p.  70. 

by  engaging  in  rebellion,  Amdt.  aTt.  14,  sec.  3,  p.  735. 

for  office  of  elector  of  President,  art.  2,  sec.  1,  cl.  2,  p.  464. 
District  of  Columbia, 

Congress  to  exercise  exclusive  legislation,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  17, 
p.  205. 

inhabitants  of,  citizens  of  the  United  States,  p.  205. 

legislative  power  of  Congress,  p.  206. 
Dockyards, 

exclusive  control  of  Congress,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  17,  p.  205. 
Domestic  violence, 

state  right  to  protection  from,  art.  4,  sec.  4,  cl.  1,  p.  603. 
Drummers, 

and  peddlers  distinguished,  p.  141. 

tax   on   as   commerce   regulation,   p.   140. 
Due  process  of  law, 

persons  not  to  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty,  or  property  without, 
Amdt.  art.  5,  pp.  627,  641. 

construction  of  term,  p.  641. 

state  not  to  deprive  of  life,  liberty,  or  property  without,  Amdt. 
art.  14,  sec.  1,  p.  696. 

purpose  of  amendment,  pp.   696,  697. 
Duties, 

defined,  p.  86. 

imposts  and  excises,  power  of  Congress  to  lay,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl. 

1,  pp.  76,  86. 

to  be  uniform  throughout  United  States,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  1,  p. 

76. 
Ct uniformity"  defined,  p.   88. 
no  duty  or  tax  to  be  laid  on   exports  from  a  state,  art.  1,  sec. 

9,  cl.  5,  p.  233. 
vessels  clearing  from  one  state  not  to  pay  in  another,  art.  1,  sec. 

7,  cl.  6,  p.  234. 
vessels  of  one  state  not  to  pay  duties  in  another,  art.  1,  sec.  9, 

cl.  6,  p.  234. 
no  state  to  lay  duty  on  imports  or  exports,  art.   1,  sec.  10,  cl. 

2,  pp.  444,  447. 

if   laid   by   consent   of   Congress,   net   produce   to   be   for   use    of 
United   States,  art.  1,  sec.  10,  cl.  2,  pp.  444,  450. 

all  such   laws  subject  to   control  and  revision   of   Congress,  art. 
1,  sec.  10,  cl.  2,  pp.  444,  450. 
Duties  of  President, 

when  to   devolve  on  Vice-President,  art.   2,  sec.  1,  cl.  6,  p.  467. 


J)  18  Index. 

Duties  of  President — Continued. 

in  case  of  disability  of  both,  Congress  shall  declare  who  shall 
act,  art.  2,  sec.  1,  cl.  6,  p.  467. 
Duty  on  tonnage, 

no  state  to  lay,  without  consent  of  Congress,  art.  1,  sec.  10,  cl. 

3,  p.  451. 

definition  of  tonnage  duty,  p.  451. 
compensatory  fees  not   objectionable,  p.  454. 

Election, 

of  representatives  in  Congress,  art.  1,  see.  2,  cl.  1,  p.  56. 

of  senators,  art.  1,  sec.  4,  cl.  1,  p.  56. 

manner  of  election  prescribed  by  states,  p.  55. 

each   House  to  judge  of  returns  and  qualifications   of  its  mem« 

bers,  art.  1,  sec.  5,  cl.  1,  p.  58. 
of  President  to  be  by  chosen  electors,  art.  2,  sec.  1,  cl.  2,  p.  464. 
of  President,   how  conducted,   Amdt.   art.   12,   p.   690. 
of  executive,  Congress  may  determine  day  of,  art.   2,  sec.  1,  cl. 

4,  p.  466. 

day  to  be  same  throughout  the  Union,  art.  2,  sec.  1,  cl.  4,  p.  466. 
citizenship   of   itself   does   not   give   right   to   vote   at,   p.   43. 
certificate  as  evidence,  p.  59. 

ii  '-   'native,  tie  vote,  how   determined,  p.   60. 
Elective  franchise, 

right    of   citizen    to   vote,   Amdt.   art.    15,    sec.    1,   p.    738. 
Congress  may  enforce  provision,  Amdt.  art.   15,  sec.  2,  p.  740. 
right  comes  from  states,  p.  252. 

Tight    denied    by   state,    effect    on    apportionment    of   representa- 
tives,   Amdt.  art.  14,  sec.  2,  p.  734. 
withholding  from   ex-convicts,  not  ex  post  facto,  p.   252. 
Electors, 

who  are,  p.  39. 

for    President    and    Vice-President — each    state    to    appoint,    art. 

2,  sec.  1,  cl.  2,  p.  465. 
number  equal  to  senators  and  representatives,  art.  2,  sec.  1,  cl. 

2,  p.  465. 
who  not  eligible,  art.  2,  sec.  1,  cl.  2,  p.  465. 
disqualification  of,  p.  465. 
Congress  may  determine  time  of  choosing  and  of  voting  by,  art. 

2,  sec.  1,  cl.  4,  p.  466. 
day  to  be  the  same  throughout  the  United  States,  art.  2,  sec.  1, 

cl.  4,  p.  466. 
to  meet  and  vote  by  ballot,  Amdt.  art.  12,  p.  691. 
ballots  for  President   and   Vice-President   to   be   distinct,   Amdt. 

art.  12,  pp.  690,  691. 
one  at  least  to  be  inhabitant  of  another  state,  Amdt.  art.  12,  p. 

691. 


Index.  2V3 

Electors — Continued. 

distinct  list  to  be  made,  Amdt.  art.  12,  pp.  690,  691. 

to  sign,  certify,  and  transmit  lists  to  President  of  Senate,  Amdt. 
art.  12,  pp.  690,  691. 

•who  disqualified  for  office  of,  Amdt.  art.  14,  sec.  3,  p.  735. 

Congress  may  remove  disability,  Amdt.  art.  14,  sec.  3,  p.  735. 

intent  of  section,  p.  735. 
Emancipation, 

validity  of  act  of  Congress,  p.  195. 

slavery  prohibited,   Anidt.   art.   13,   sec.   1,  p.   692. 

section  construed,  pp.  692,  693. 

of  slave,  claim  for  loss  by,  illegal  and  void,  Amdt.  art.  14,  sec. 
4,  p.  736. 
Embargo, 

power  of  Congress  to  impose,  p.  109. 

Eminent  domain, 

sovereignty  of  people  of  state,  p.  342. 

right  of,  p.  650. 

compensation  on  condemnation,  p.  658. 
Emoluments, 

United  States  official  not  to  accept,  from  foreign  king,  etc.,  art. 

1,  sec.  9,  cl.  8,  p.  238. 
Enactment  of  laws, 

bills,  how  passed,  art.  1,  sec.  7,  cl.  2,  p.  72. 

course  of  proceedings  on,  pp.  72,  73. 

attestation  by  presiding  officers,  p.  73. 

orders  and  resolutions,  how  passed,  art.  1,  sec.  7,  cl.  3,  p.  75. 

to  be   approved  by  President,  p.   75. 

laws,  how  passed  without  President's  approval,  p.  75. 
Enlistment, 

of  minors,  power  of  Congress,  p.  197. 
Enumeration, 

of  inhabitants,  when   to   be  made,  art.  1,  sec.   2,  cl.  3,  p.  44. 

ratio  of  representation,  art.  1,  sec.  2,  cl.  3,  p.  44;  Amdt.  14,  sec. 

2,  p.  734. 

of  rights,  not  to  disparage  others  retained,  Amdt.  art.  9,  p.  676. 

means  to   enforce   enumerated  powers,  p.   212. 
Equal  protection  of  the  laws, 

no   state  shall   deny,   Amdt.   art.   14,   sec.   1,  p.   696. 

purpose  of  amendment,  p.  696. 

"equal  protection"   defined,  p.   728. 
Equal  suffrage  in  Senate, 

secured  to  states,  ait.  5,  p.  606. 
Equity  cases, 

what  are,  p.  522. 

party  not  entitled  to  jury  in,  p.  GC9, 


920  Index. 

Excessive  bail, 

shall  not  be  required,  Amdt.  art.  8,  p.  675. 
Excises, 

power  of  Congress  to  lay  and  collect,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  1,  pp.  76, 

86. 
to  be  uniform,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  1,  pp.  76,  88. 
Exclusive  legislation, 

by  Congress  over  District   of  Columbia,  art.   1,  sec.  8,  cl.  17,  p. 

205. 
over  places  ceded  to  United  States,  art.  1,  see.  8,  cl.  17,  p.  205. 
Executive  department, 

powers   vested   in   President,   art.   1,   sec.   1,   cl.   1,  p.  459. 

power  of,  beyond  control  of  judiciary,  art.  2,  sec.  1,  cl.  1,  p.  459. 

acts  through  heads  of  departments,  p.  460. 

discretionary  acts  not  reviewable,  p.  461. 

election  of  President  and  Vice-President,  art.  2,  sec.  1,  cl.  2,  p. 

464. 
only   native-born    citizens,   to   be    eligible   to   such   office,   art.    2, 

sec.  1,  cl.  5,  p.  467. 
eligibility  to  office,  art.  2,  sec.  1,  cl.  5,  p.  467. 

heads  of  may  be  vested  with  power  to  appoint  inferior  officers, 
art.  2,  sec.  2,  cl.  2,  p.  4S1. 

See    President. 
Executive  officers, 

to  be  bound  by  oath  to   support   the   constitution,   art.   6,  cl.   3. 

p.   615. 
oath  to  be  taken  by  President,  art.  2,  sec.  1,  cl.  8,  p.  467. 
of  states  to  be  bound  by  oath,  art.  6,  cl.  3,  p.  651. 
President  may   require  written  opinions  of,  art.   2,  sec.  2,  cl.   1, 
p.  469. 

See  President;  Vice-President. 
Executive  power, 

vested  in  President,  art.  2,  sec.  1,  cl.  1,  p.  459. 
See  President. 
Exemption, 

validity  of  state  laws,  p.  409. 
from  taxation,  a  contract,  pp.  299,  347. 
of  corporation  from  taxation,  p.  347. 
effect  of,  p.  353. 
Expenditures, 

of  money  to  be  published,  art.  1,  sec.  9,  cl.  7.  p.  236. 
Exports, 

from  states,  no  tax  to  be  laid  on,  by  Congress,  art.  1,  sec.  9,  cl. 

5,  p.  233. 
construction  of  clause,  p.  233. 
meaning  of  term,  p.  444. 


Index.  021 

Exports — Continued. 

no   state   to   lay   duties   on  without   consent   of   Congress,   art.   1, 
sec.  10,  el.  2,  p.  444. 

if  laid,  to  be  for  use  of  treasury,  art.  1,  see.  10,  cl.  2,  p.  444. 

and  be  subject  to  revision  of  Congress,  art.  1,  sec.  10,  cl.  2,  p. 
444. 
Ex  post  facto  laws, 

denned,  pp.  227,  253. 

apply   to    criminal   laws   only,   pp.   229,   257. 

shall  not  be  passed,  art.  1,  sec.  9,  cl.  3,  p.  22G. 

construction  of  clause,  pp.  227-230. 

state  not  to  pass,  art.  1,  sec.  10,  cl.  1,  p.  239. 

prohibition,  construed,  p.  239. 

what  not  ex  post  facto,  p.  260. 

imposing  higher  punishment  for  second  offense  is  not,  p.  255. 

laws  relating  to  procedure  not  ex  post  facto,  p.  259. 

when  not  invalid,  p.  260. 
Expulsion  of  member, 

by  concurrence  of  two-thirds,  art.  1,  sec.  5,  cl.  2,  p.  62. 
Expurgatory  oath, 

when  may  be  acquired,  p.  252. 

Faith  and  credit, 

to  acts,  records,  and  judicial  proceedings,  of  the  several  states, 
art.  4,  sec.  1,  cl.  1,  p.  561. 
Fees  of  office, 

state  may  abolish,  pp.  287,  316. 
Felony, 

members  of  Congress  not  privileged  from  arrest  for,  art.  1,  sec. 
6,  cl.  1,  p.  66. 

on   high   seas,   Congress   shall   have  power  to   define  and  punish, 
art.  1,  sec.  8,  el.  10,  p.  190. 
Ferries, 

state  may  charter,  pp.  112,  113,  358. 

grant  of  franchise  construed,  p.  360. 
Terry  franchise, 

construction  of,  p.  360. 

reserved  power  to  alter  or  amend,  p.  373. 

Fines, 

excessive,  not  to  be  imposed,  Amdt.  art.  8,  p.   675. 

Fisheries, 

state  authority  over,  p.  128. 
Forcible  entry  and  detainer, 

state  may  deprive  lessee  of  action  for,  p.  403. 
Foreign  coin, 

Congress  may  regulate  value  of,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  5,  p.  171. 


922  Index. 

Foreign  corporations, 

state  authority  over,  pp.   132.  143. 

See  Corporations. 
Foneign  nations, 

'    Congress  to  regulate  commerce  with,  art.  1,  sec.   8,  cl.  3,  p.  95. 

commerce  with,  what  is,  p.  99. 
Foreign  powers, 

state  prohibited  from  entering  into  compact  with,  art.  1,  sec.  10, 
cl.  3,  pp.  451,  456. 
Forfeiture, 

not  to  extend  beyond  life  of  party  attained,  art.  3,  sec.  3,  cl.  2, 
p.  659. 

of  corporate  franchises,  pp.  331,  336. 
Formation  of  new  states, 

provisions  for,  art.  4,  sec.  3,  cl.  1,  p.  593. 
Form  of  government, 

states  to  be  guaranteed  republican,  art.  4,  sec.  4,  p.  603. 

states  to  be  protected  from  invasion  and  domestic  violence,  art. 
4,  sec.  4,  p.  603. 
Forts, 

exclusive  legislation  by  Congress  over  sites,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  17, 
p.  205. 

jurisdiction  over  sites  exclusive  in  Congress,  p.  205. 
Franchise, 

to  corporations,  state  grant  construed,  pp.  323,  340. 

effect  on  of  exemption  from  taxation,  p.  349. 

may  be  taken  by  eminent  domain,  p.  342. 

forfeiture  grounds  of,  pp.  331,  336. 

statute  essentially  paralyzing,  is  void,  p.  335. 

reserved  power  to  alter,  amend,  or  repeal,  p.  373. 
Freedom  of  speech  and  of  the  press, 

guaranteed,  Amdt.  art.  1,  pp.  619,  620. 
Fugitives, 

from  justice  to  be  delivered  up,  art.  4,  sec.  2,  cl.  2,  p.  579. 

demand  for  surrender,  p.  582. 

duty  to  surrender,  p.  584. 

crimes  embraced,  p.  581. 

rights  of  accused,  p.  588. 

from  service  or  labor  to  be  delivered  up,  art.  4,  sec.  2,  cl.  3,  p. 
590. 

exclusive   power  in   Congress,   p.   590. 

"in  one  state,"  what  includes,  p.  591. 

persons  referred  to  African  slaves,  p.  591. 

General  laws, 

not  contracts,  but   expressions   of   legislative   will,  p.  289. 


Index.  923 

General  welfare, 

purpose    of    constitution    to    secure,   preamble,    p.    35. 
Congress  shall  have  power  to  provide  for,  art.  1,  sec.   8,  cl.   1, 
p.  76. 

Georgia, 

representatives  in  first  Congress,  art.  1,  sec.  2,  cl.  3,  p.  44. 

Gold  and  silver  coin, 

restriction   on   states   as   to   tender   in   payment,   art.   1,   sec.   10, 
cl.    1,   pp.    239,   249. 
Good  behavior, 

term   of  judicial  officers,  pp.  496,  510. 

Government, 

to  provide  for  common  defense,  preamble,  p.  35. 

right  and  duty  of,  p.  36. 

powers  of,  construed,  p.  35. 

powers  vested  in  departments  are  distinct,  pp.   38,  501. 

powers  invested  by  people  of  United  States,  p.  35. 

as  a  political  body,  construed,  p.  36. 

branches  of,  distinct  and  independent,  pp.  38,  501. 

jurisdiction  over  ceded  territory,  p.  207. 

over  property  purchased  from  individuals,  pp.  207,  210. 

power  over  militia,  calling  it  forth,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  15,  p.  201. 

organizing,  arming,  etc.,  the  militia,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  16,  p.  204. 

when  authority  over  militia  is  exclusive,  p.  204. 

authority  over  District  of  Columbia,  p.  207. 

over  forts,  arsenals,  etc.,  p.  211. 

restriction  on  state  authority,  p.  210. 

powers  may  be   enforced   by  laws   necessary   and   proper,   art.   1, 

sec.  8,  cl.  18,  p.  212. 
incidental  powers  of,  p.  212. 
what  means  may  be  employed,  pp.  213,  214. 

enumeration  of  means,  p.  215. 

power   over    public   territory   and   other   property,   art.   4,   sec.   3, 
cl.  2,  p.  596. 

to  dispose  of  and  make  needful  rules  for,  pp.  596,  597. 

extent  of  power  of,  pp.  596,  597. 

to  guarantee  republican  form  to  states,  art.  4,  sec.  4,  p.  603. 

to  protect  states  from  invasion  and  domestic  violence,  art.  4,  sec. 
4,  p.  603. 

what  amendments  apply  exclusively  to,  p.  607. 

constitution,  laws  of,  and  treaties,  as  supreme  law,  art.  6,  cl.  2, 
pp.  609-614. 

powers   not   delegated   are  reserved   to   states,   Amdt.   art.   10.   p. 
677. 

oath  to  be  taken  by  officers  of,  art.  6,  cl.  3,  p.  615. 

specified  limitations  on  powers,  p.  221. 


924  Index. 

Government — Continued. 

privilege  of  habeas  corpus  not  to  be  suspended,  p.  223. 

bills  of  attainder  and  ex  post  facto  laws  forbidden,  p.  226. 

capitation  and  direct  taxes,  p.  231. 

duties  on  exports,  p.  233. 

preferences  to  ports,  p.  234. 

drawing  money  from  treasury,  p.  236. 

not  to  grant  any  title  of  nobility,  p.  238. 
Government  of  states, 

republican  form  guaranteed,  art.  4,  see.  4,  p.  603. 

protection   from   invasion    or    domestic    violence,   art.   4,   sec.    4, 
p.  603. 

power  of  taxation,  pp.  81,  91,  130,  138. 

police  powers  as  to  commerce,  pp.  117,  118. 

power  over  internal  commerce,  p.  111. 

authority   over  fisheries,   p.    128. 

right  of  fishery  not  privilege  of  citizenship,  p.  706. 

over  licenses,  pp.  77,  138. 

as  to  insolvencies,  pp.  161,  417. 

validity  of  insolvent  laws,  p.  161. 

over  counterfeiting,  p.  174. 

to   call   out   militia,   p.    202. 

organization   of   militia,   p.    204. 

authority  over  lands  within  borders,  p.  210. 

power  to  make  contracts,  p.  288. 

land   grants,   p.   291. 

to  grant  charters  to  corporations,  p.  330    et  seq. 

may  regulate  rates  of  freights  and  fares,  pp.  114,  365,  718. 

authority  over  corporations,  p.  143. 

may  alter  or  amend  charters,  p.  373. 

authority  over  municipal  corporations,  p.  309. 
Government,  seat  of, 

legislative  powers  of  Congress,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  17,  p.  205. 
Grand  jury, 

indictment    or   presentment,    personal    rights,    Amdt.    art.    5,   pp. 
627,   628. 

crimes  to  be  tried  on  presentment  of,  Amdt.  art.  5,  pp.  627,  628. 

exceptions  as  to  land  and  naval  forces  and  militia,  Amdt.  art.  5, 

p.  627. 
change  in  law  relating  to,  not  ex  post  facto,  p.  261. 
Grant, 

of  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  11,  pp.   193, 

196. 
states  inhibited,  art.  1,  sec.  10,  el.  1,  p.  239. 

of   titles  of  nobility  prohibited  to  government,  art.  1,  sec.  9,  cl. 
8,  p.  238. 


Index.  925 

Grant — Continued. 

states  inhibited  from  grant  of  titles,  art.  1,  see.  10,  cl.  1,  p.  239. 

by  state,  when  not  subject  to  subsequent  legislation,  p.  291. 

of   franchise,   construction   of,   p.    340. 
Grants, 

of  land  by  state  contracts  cannot  be  impaired,  p.  291. 

of  franchises  are  contracts,  p.  332. 
Grievances, 

right   of  petition  for  redress  of,  Amdt.   art.   1,  pp.  619,  621. 
Guarantee, 

of  republican  form  of  government  to  states,  art.  4,  sec.  4,  p.  603. 

of  protection  of  states  from  invasion  and  domestic  violence,  art. 
4,  sec.  4,  p.  603. 

Habeas  corpus, 

privilege  of  writ  not  to  be  suspended,  unless,  art.  1,  sec.  9,  cl.  2, 
p.  223. 

discharge  of  enlisted  persons  under,  p.  198. 

power  to  suspend,  where  lodged,  p.  225. 

Congress  may  suspend,  p.  225. 

jurisdiction  to  issue,  p.  549. 

conflicts  of  jurisdiction,  p.  513. 
Heads  of  departments, 

may  be.  vested  with  power  to  appoint  officers,  art.  2,  sec.  2,  cl. 
2,  p.  481. 

President  may  require  written  opinions  from,  art.  2,  sec.  2,  cl.  1, 
p.  469. 
Health, 

state  may  pass  laws'  for  protection  of,  pp.  124,  438. 
High  crimes  and  misdemeanors, 

removal  of  officers  on  impeachment  for,  art.  2,  sec.  4,  p.  495. 
"High  seas," 

denned,  p.  191. 
History, 

as  aid  in  construing  constitution,  p.  27. 
House  of  Representatives, 

composed  of  members  chosen  every  second  year,  art.  1,  sec.  2,  cl. 
1,  p.  39. 

qualification  of  electors,  art.  1,  sec.  2,  cl.  1,  p.  39. 

qualification  of  member,  age  and  residence,  art.  1,  sec.  2,  cl.  2, 
p.  40. 

state   executives  to  issue  writs  of  election,  art.  1,  sec.  2,  cl.  4, 
p.  46. 

shall  choose  speaker  and  other  officers,  art.  1,  3ec.  2,  cl.  5,  p.  48. 

shall  have  sole  power  of  impeachment,  art.  1,  sec.  2,  cl.  5,  p.  4S. 


026  Index. 

House  of  Representatives — Continued. 

shall  judge  elections,  returns,  and   qualifications   of  its  member?, 

art.  1,  sec.  5,  el.  1,  p.  58. 
a  majority  to  constitute  a  quorum,  art.  1,  sec.  5,  cl.  1,  pp.  58,  62. 
less,  may  adjourn  from  day  to  day,  art.  1,  sec.  5,  cl.  1,  p.  58. 
may  determine  its  rule    of  proceeding,  art.  1,  sec.  5,  cl.  2,  p.  62. 
power  as  to  proceedings  generally,  p.  62. 
may  punish  for   disorderly  behavior,   or   expel  a  member,   art.  1, 

see.  5,  cl.  2,  p.  62. 
construction  of  clause,  p.  62. 
expulsion  of  members,  p.   63. 

shall  keep  journal  of  proceedings,  art.  1,  sec.  5,  cl.  3,  p.  65. 
journal  as  evidence,  p.  65. 

restriction  on  power  to  adjourn,  art.  1,  sec.  5,  cl.  4,  p.  65. 
members  not  to  be  questioned  for  speech  or  debate,  art.  1,  sec.  6, 

cl.  1,  pp.  66,  68. 
privilege  from  arrest,  p.  66. 
United  States  official  not   eligible  to  membership,  art.   1,  sec.   6, 

cl.  2,  p.  69. 
members    ineligible    to   offices    created    during   their   membership, 

art.  1,  sec.  6,  cl.  2,  pp.  69,  70. 
bills  for  raising  revenue  to  originate  in,  art.  1,  sec.  7,  cl.  1,  p.  71. 
votes  for  President  and  Vice-President  to  be  counted  in  presence 

of,  Amdt.  art.  12,  pp.  690,  691. 
when   and  how  to  choose  President,  Amdt.  art.  12,  pp.  690,  691. 
vote  to  be  taken  by  states,  Amdt.  art.  12,  p.  690. 
quorum  in  such  case,  what  to  constitute,  Amdt.  art.  12,  sec.  1,  p. 

690. 
majority  of  states  necessary  to  choice,  Amdt.  art.  12,  p.  690. 
disability  to  membership  by  participation  in  rebellion,  Amdt.  art 

14,  sec.  3,  p.  735. 
Congress  may  remove  disability,  Amdt.  art.  14,  sec.  3,  p.  735. 
See  Congress. 
Immigration, 

Congress  may  prohibit,  p.   108. 
state  cannot  discourage,  p.  116. 
Immunities, 

privilege  of  member   of  Congress   from   arrest,  art.   1,  sec.   6,  cl. 

1,  pp.   69,   70. 
soldiers   not  to  be  quartered   in  time   of  peace,  Amdt.  art.  3,  p. 

623. 
rights  of  citizens,  art.  4,  sec.  2,  cl.  1,  p.  569. 
immunities  defined,  p.  572. 

of  state  and  national  citizenship,  distinguished,  p.  698. 
no  person  to  be  twice  in  jeopardy  for  same  offense,  Amdt.  art.  5, 
pp.  627,  632. 


Index.  927 

Immunities — Continued. 

who  are  citizens  of  the  United  States,  Amdt.  art.  14,  sec.  1,  p. 

698. 
privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens  not  to  be  abridged,  Amdt. 

art.  14,  sec.  1,  pp.  696,  702. 
state   not    to    deprive    of   life,    liberty,   or   property   without    due 

process  of  law,  Amdt.  art.  14,  sec.  1,  pp.  696,  708. 
nor  deny  the  equal  protection  of  the  law,  Amdt.  art.  14,  sec.  1, 

pp.  696,  728. 
from    taxation,   pp.   299,   347. 
Impairment, 

defined,   p.   386. 
Impairment  of  obligation, 

state   legislation   inhibited,   pp.   239,   263. 

inhibition  construed,  p.  263. 

what  constitutes  a  "law,"  p.  268. 

retrospective  statutes,  validity  of,  p.  273. 

"contract"  defined,  p.  282. 

contracts,  what  comprehend,  p.  282. 

contracts,  with  state  included,  p.  288. 

"obligation"  denned,  p.  384. 

"impairment"   defined,  p.  386. 

degree  of  impairment,  p.  389. 

what   not   a   violation   of   obligation,  p.   391. 

relation  of  obligation  and  remedy,  p.  396. 

impairment  of  remedy,  pp.  396,  397. 

change,  not  an  impairment,  p.  398. 

what  not  an  impairment,  p.  402. 

statute  of  limitations  not  an  impairment,  p.  406. 

exemption  laws,  when  an  impairment,  p.  409. 

stay  laws,  when  an  impairment,  p.  413. 

state  insolvency  laws,  validity  of,  p.  417. 

mortgage  and  redemption  laws,  p.  422. 

lien  laws,  p.  426. 

legislature  may  regulate  judicial  proceedings,  p.  433. 

statute  rights  may  be  modified,  p.  266. 

taxation   as  impairment,  p.   276. 

licenses  may  be  modified,  p.  296. 

exemption  from  taxation,  p.  299. 

state  grants  of  land,  contract  construed,  p.  292. 

state  grants  generally,  construed,  p.  291. 

vested  rights  cannot  be  impaired,  p.  264. 

corporate  rights  protected,  p.  330    et  seq. 

protection  of  corporate  franchise,  p.  332. 

power  of  state   over  corporate   liabilities,   p.   345. 

exemption   of  corporations   from   taxation   as  a  contract,  p.   347. 

how    far    extends,    p.    353. 


928  Index. 

Impairment  of  obligation — Continued. 

banking  charter  a  contract,  p.  355. 

franchises  to  bridges  and  ferries,  p.  358. 

canal  and  turnpike  charters,  p.  361. 

railroad  charter  a  contract,  p.  363. 

amendment  of  charter,  p.  369. 

power  to  amend,  when  reserved,  p.  373. 

exercise  of  reserved  power,  p.  377. 

power  of  repeal,  p.  382. 

charter  of  municipal  corporation  not  a  contract,  p.  309. 

authority   over    municipal   corporations,   pp.   309-329. 
Impairment  of  remedies, 

when  prohibited,  p.  396. 

change  of  remedy,  when  may  be  made,  p.  398. 

what  is  not,  p.  402. 

acts   of  limitation  not,  p.  406. 

exemption  laws,  when  valid,  p.  409. 

stay  laws,  when  valid,  p.  413. 

state  insolvency  laws,  p.  417. 

mortgage  and  redemption  laws,  p.  422. 

lien  laws,  p.  426. 

right  of  action  and  defense  subject  to  legislative  control,  p.  428. 
See  Contracts. 
Impeachment, 

House  to  have  sole  power  of,  art.  1,  sec.  2,  cl.  5,  p.  48. 

Senate  the  sole  power  to  try,  art.  1,  sec.  3,  cl.  6,  p.  54. 

to  be  on  oath  or  affirmation,  art.  1,  sec.  3,  cl.  6,  p.  54. 

when  chief  justice  to  preside,  art.  1,  sec.  3,  cl.  6,  p.  54. 

two-thirds  necessary  for  conviction,  art.  1,  sec.  3,  cl.  6.  p.  54. 

judgment,  extent  of,  on  conviction,  art.  1,  sec.  3,  cl.  7,  p.  54. 

judgment,  not  to  bar  indictment  and  punishment,  art.  1,  sec.  3, 
cl.  7,  p.  54. 

who  removable  on  impeachment,  art.  2,  sec.  4,  cl.  1,  p.  495. 

cases  not  to  be  tried  by  jury,  art.  3,  sec.  2,  cl.  3,  p.  551. 
Implication, 

in  construing  constitution,  p.  28. 
Importation  of  slaves, 

restriction  on  powers  of  Congress,  art.  1,  sec.  9,  cl.  1,  p.  221. 

"importation"  defined,  p.  221. 

tax  may  be  imposed,  art.  1,  sec.  9,  cl.  1,  p.  221. 
Imports, 

state  shall  not  lay  duties  on  without  consent  of  Congress,  art. 
1,  see.  10,  cl.  2,  p.  444. 

if  laid  by  state,  for  use  of  treasury,  art.  1,  sec.  10,  cl.  2,  pp. 
444,  450. 


Index.  929 

Imports — Continued. 

shall  be  subject  to  revision  by  Congress,  art.  1,  sec.  10,  cl.  2,  p. 
444. 

imports  defined,  p.  444. 
Imposts, 

defined,  p.  86. 

Congress  to  lay,  art.  1,  see.  8,  cl.  1,  pp.  76-86. 
Imposts   and  excises, 

Congress    shall  have    power    to    lay    and    collect,   art.    1,   sec.    8, 
cl.  1,  p.  76. 

definitions,  p.  86. 

to  be  uniform  throughout  states,  p.  88. 
Incidental  power, 

of  government,  p.  212. 

instance  of  exercise,  p.  215. 
Income  tax, 

salaries  of  state   officers  not   subject  to,  p.   83. 

a  direct  tax,  p.  232. 
Incompatible  offices, 

members   of   Congress  cannot   hold   other  civil  office,  art.  1,  sec. 
6,  cl.  2,  p.  69. 

what  offices  are,  pp.  69,  70. 

effect  of  acceptance,  p.  70. 

United  States  marshal  cannot  be  commercial  agent,  p.  238. 

Indians, 

excluded  from  representation,  art.   1,  sec.  2,  cl.  3,  p.  44;   Amdt. 

art.  14,  sec.  2,  p.  734. 
not  foreign  subjects  or  citizens,  pp.  148,  699. 
status  of  tribes,  p.  148. 
commerce  with  subject  to  congressional  regulation,  art.  1,  sec.  8, 

cl.  3,  pp.  95,  146. 
may  enforce   rights   in  state   courts,  p.   148. 
may  be  sued  in  state  courts,  p.  147. 

on  reservation  within  state,  how  governed,  pp.  148,  149. 
•  laws  and  customs  of ,  p.  150. 
when  may  be  naturalized,  p.  699. 
Indian  Territory, 

within  state,  power  of  Congress,  p.  149. 
Indian  tribes, 

Congress  to  regulate  commerce  with,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  3,  pp.  95, 

146. 
commerce  with  Indians,  p.  146. 
construction  of  clause,  p.  146. 

source  of  power  to  pass  criminal  laws  for,  p.  147. 
within  states,  state  laws  no  force  over,  p.  149. 
Notes  on  Constitution — 59 


930  Index. 

Indian  tribes — Continued. 

right  to  use  of  soil  can  only  be  devested  by  government,  p.  150. 

Indian  laws  and  customs  to  rule,  p.  150. 
Indictment  or  presentment, 

essential  to  trial  for  capital  or  infamous  crime,  Amdt.  art.  5,  pp. 
627,  628. 

except  in  cases  in  land  and  naval  forces  and  militia,  Amdt.  art. 
5,  pp.  627,  628. 

of  person  convicted  on  impeachment,  art.  1,  sec.  3,  el.  7,  p.  54. 
Inferior  courts, 

what  are,  p.  505. 

power  of  Congress  to  establish,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  el.  9,  p.  187. 

territorial  courts  not  included  in  term,  p.  188. 

judicial  power  vested  in,  art.  3,  sec.  1,  el.  1,  p.  496. 

judges  to  hold  office  during  good  behavior,  art.  3,  sec.  1,  el.  1, 
pp.  496,  516. 

compensation   not   to   be   diminished   during   official   term,   art.   3, 
sec.  1,  el.  1,  pp.  496,  516. 
Inferior  officers, 

Congress   may  invest    appointment   of,  where   they   think  proper, 
art.  2,  sec.  2,  el.  2,  p.  481. 
Inheritance  tax, 

power  of  Congress  to  impose,  pp.  87,  232. 

not  a  direct  tax,  p.  232, 
Inhabitant, 

defined,  p.  42. 

status  of,  in  sites  purchased  by  government,  p.  206. 
Insolvent  laws, 

bankruptcy  and  insolvency  equivalent  terms,  p.  158. 

laws,  when  operative,  p.  164. 

when  suspended  by  bankrupt  act,  pp.  164,  165. 

validity  of,  pp.  165,  417. 

citizens  of  other  states,  when  bound  by,  p.  106. 

Congress  may  make  the  United  States  a  preferred  creditor,  p.  217. 
Inspection  laws, 

states  may  enact,  pp.  123,  444,  449. 

state  laws  subject  to  revision  by  Congress,  p.  444. 
Insurance, 

business  of  not  commerce,  p.  109. 
Insurrections, 

Congress  to  provide  for  suppression  of,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  el.  15,  p.  201. 

power  of  President,  p.  474. 

participants  in,  disqualified  for  office,  Amdt.  art.  14,  sec.  3,  p.  735. 

Congress  may  remove  disabilities,  Amdt.  art.  14,  sec.  3,  p.  735. 

debts  contracted  in  aid  of,  void,  Amdt.  art.  14,  sec.  4,  p.  736. 


Index.  931 

Internal  commerce, 

states  may  regulate,  p.  111. 
Intoxicating  liquors, 

state  may  regulate  manufacture  and  sale,  pp.  127,  440. 

license  to  sell,  not  a  contract,  p.  298. 

right  to  sell,  not  privilege  of  citizenship,  p.  706. 
Invasion, 

power  of  states  to  repel,  art.  1,  sec.  10,  cl.  3,  pp.  451,  458. 

writ  of  habeas  corpus,  suspension  of,  art.  1,  sec.  9,  cl.  2,  p.  223. 

Congress  may  call  militia  out  to  repel,  art.  1,  sec.   8,  cl.  15,  p. 
201. 

power  to  repel,  construed,  pp.  201,  202. 

United  States  to  protect  each  state  against,  art.  4,  sec.  4,  p.  603. 

Invention, 

defined,  p.  184. 
Inventors, 

Congress  4o  pass  laws  to  secure  rights  to,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  8,  p. 
178. 

extent  of  power,  p.  183. 
Involuntary  servitude, 

abolition  of,  except  for  crime,  Amdt.  art.  13,  sec.  1,  p.  692. 

power   of   Congress   to  enforce  provision,  Amdt.   art.   13,  sec.   2, 
p.  694. 

Jeopardy  of  life  and  limb, 

person  not  to  be  twice  subject  to,  Amdt.  art.  5,  pp.  627,  632. 

"jeopardy"  defined,  p.  632. 
Joint  resolution, 

approved,  effect  of,  as  law,  p.  75. 
Journal  of  proceedings, 

each  House  to  keep,  art.  1,  sec.  5,  el.  3,  p.  65. 

presumed  correct,  p.  65. 

entitled  to  judicial  notice,  p.  65. 
Judges, 

of  United  States  courts  to  hold  office  during  good  behavior,  art. 
3,  sec.  1,  cl.  1,  pp.  496,  516. 

compensation  not  to  be  diminished  during  term,  art.  3,  sec.  1,  cl. 
1,   pp.   496,   516. 

Congress  cannot  limit,  p.  516. 

judges  of  territorial  courts  not  contemplated,  p.  516. 

in  every  state,  bound  by  constitution,  laws,  and  treaties  of  United 
States,  art.  6,  cl.  2,  p.  609. 
Judgment, 

in  impeachment  cases  to  extend  only  to  removal  from  office,  art. 
1,  sec.  3,  cl.    7,  p.  54. 


932  Index. 

Judgment — Continued. 

not  a  bar  to  indictment  and  trial  at  law,  art.  1,  see.  3,  el.  7,  p.  54. 
of  state  courts  entitled  to  full  faith  and  credit,  art.  4,  sec.  1,  p. 

561. 
of  state  courts,  effect  of  authentication  of,  p.  561. 
judgment  not  a  contract,  p.  285. 
Judicial  department, 

power  where  vested,  art.  3,  sec.  1,  p.  496. 
supreme  and  inferior  courts,  art.  3,  sec.  1,  p.  496. 
term  of  office  and  compensation  of  judges,  art.  3,  sec.  1,  p.  496. 
judicial  power,  p.  499. 
defined,  p.  517. 

extent  of  power,  pp.  499,  517. 
jurisdiction   of   courts,  p.   504. 

of  United  States  courts,  art.  3,  sec.  2,  el.  1,  p.  517. 
of  territorial  and  provisional  courts,  p.  508. 
authority  of  state  courts,  p.  509. 
removal  of  causes,  p.  513. 

jurisdiction   of  supreme  court,  art.  3,  sec.  2,  cl.  2,  p.  542. 
extent  of  jurisdiction,  p.  517, 
original  jurisdiction,  p.  542. 
appellate  jurisdiction,  p.  546. 

jurisdiction  limited  by  Eleventh   Amendment,  p.   686. 
Judicial  notice, 

legislative  journal  entitled  to,  p.  65. 
of  treaty,  p.  481. 
Judicial  power, 

where  vested,  art.  3,  sec.  1,  p.  496. 

Congress  may   constitute  inferior   tribunals,   art.   1,   sec.   8,   el.  9, 

p.  187. 
power  of  Congress,  p.  496. 
legislation  necessary  to  vest,  p.  496. 

lodged  in  supreme  and  inferior  courts,  art.  3,  sec.  1,  p.  496. 
judges  to  hold  office  during  good  behavior,  art.  3,  sec.  1,  p.  496. 
compensation  not  to  be  diminished  during  continuance  in  office, 

art.  3,  sec.  1,  pp.  496,  516. 
cannot  encroach  on  legislative  or  executive,  p.  500. 
jurisdiction  of  United  States  courts,  p.  504. 
of  territorial  and  provisional  courts,  p.  508. 
authority  of  state  courts,  p.  509. 
removal  of  causes,  p.  513. 

authority  of  Congress  as  to  judges  and  tenure  of  office,  p.  510. 
to  extend  to  cases  in  law  and  equity,  art.  3,  sec.  2,  cl.  1,  p.  517 
to  cases  arising  under  constitution,  laws,  and  treaties,  art.  3,  sec 

2,  cl.  1,  p.  517. 
to  all  cases  affecting  ambassadors,  ministers,  and  consuls,  art.  3, 

sec.  2,  cl.  1,  p.  517. 


Index.  933 

Judicial  power — Continued. 

to  admiralty  and  maritime  cases,  art.  3,  sec.  2,  el.  1,  p.  517. 

to  controversies  to  which  United  States  is  a  party,  art.  3,  sec. 

2,  cl.  1,  p.  517. 
to  controversies  between  states,  art.  3,  sec.  2,  cl.  1,  p.  517. 
to   controversies  between   a  state   and   citizens   of   another  state, 

art.  3,  sec.  2,  cl.  1,  p.  517. 
or  between  a  state  or  its  citizens  and  foreign  states  or  citizens, 

art.  3,  sec.  2,  cl.  1,  p.  517. 
extent  of  judicial  power,  p.  517. 
what  are  cases  in  law  and  equity,  p.  520. 
as  to  persons,  p.  525. 
admiralty  and  maritime,   p.   533. 
what  are  admiralty  and  maritime  causes,  p.  537. 
in  cases  affecting  ambassadors,  etc.,  supreme  court  to  have  orig- 
inal jurisdiction,  art.  3,  sec.  2,  cl.  2,  p.  542. 
in  all  other   cases  to  have   appellate  jurisdiction,  art.   3,  sec.   2, 

cl.  2,  pp.  542,  546. 
trial    of    crimes,    except    impeachment,    to    be    by    jury,    art.    3, 

sec.  2,  cl.  3,  p.  551. 
trial  to  be  held  in  state  where  crime  committed,  art.  3,  sec.  2, 

cl.  3,  pp.  551,  552. 
when  not   committed  within   state,   Congress   may   direct,   art.   3, 

sec.  2,  cl.  3,  pp.  551,  553. 
not   to   extend   to   cases  against   a   state  by   citizens   of   another 

state,  or  a  foreign  state,  Amdt.  art.  11,  p.  686. 
extent  of  restriction,  pp.   686,  688. 

Judicial  proceedings, 

of  state,  full  faith  and  credit  to  be  given,  art.  4,  sec.  1,  pL  561L 

manner  of  proving,  may  be  prescribed  by  Congress,  art.  4,  sec. 
1,  p.  561. 
Jurisdiction, 

of  government  over  ceded  territory,  p.  205. 

of  courts  in  general,  p.  504. 

of    supreme    court,    pp.    542,    546. 

of  United  States  courts,  p.  504. 

legislation  necessary  to  vest,  p.  496. 

extent  of,  p.  517. 

5  c  mtemplated,  p.  520. 

as  to  the  person,  p.  525. 

admiralty  and  maritime,  p.  533. 

over  maritime  contracts,  p.  537. 

over  maritime  torts,  p.  539. 

original  defined,  p.  542. 

appellate  defined,  p.  546. 


934  ISNDEX. 

Jurisdiction — Continued. 

of  territorial  and  provisional  courts,  p.  508. 
of  state  courts,  p.  509. 
Jury, 

trial  of  crimes   except   on  impeachment   to   be  by  jury,   art.   3. 

sec.  2,   el.   3,  pp.  551,  553. 
accused  to  have  speedy  and  public  trial  by,  A.mdt.  art.  6,  pp.  663, 

664. 
right  not  extended  to  territory  by  treaty  of  cession,  p.  667. 
suits  at  law  where  value  over  twenty  dollars,  Amdt.  art.  7,  p.  668. 
fact  not  to  be  re-examined  except  by  rules  of  common  law,  Amdt. 
art.  7,  pp.  668,  672. 
Just  compensation, 

property  not  to  be  taken  for  public  use  without,  Amdr.   art.  5, 
pp.  627,  658. 

Justice, 

purpose  of  constitution  to  establish,  preamble,  p.  35. 
fugitives  from,  to  be  delivered  up,  art.  4,  sec.  2,  el.  2,  p.  579. 
"fugitive"   defined,  p.   579. 

Labor, 

fugitives  from,  to  be  delivered  up,  art.  4,  sec.  2,  el.  3,  p.  590. 

power  of  Congress  exclusive,  p.  590. 

"persons"  referred  to  African  negroes,  p.   591. 

"in  one  state"  defined,  p.  591. 
Land  and  naval  forces, 

Congress  may  govern  and  regulate,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  14,  p.  200. 
Land  grants, 

by  state,  conclusive  on  future  legislation,  p.  292. 
Law  of  the  land, 

constitution,  laws,  and  treaties  constitute,  art.  6,  cl.  2,  p.  609. 

judges  in  every  state  bound  by,  art.  6,  cl.  2,  p.   609. 
Law, 

right  to  practice  not  privilege  of  citizenship,  p.  706. 

within  obligation  clause,  p.  268. 

retrospective,  not  necessarily  invalid,  p.  273. 

limit  of  effect   of  state  laws,  pp.  417,  561. 

in  conflict  with  acts  of  Congress,  must  give  way,  p.  681. 

constitution   and   treaty  as  supreme   law,  p.   609. 

Law  of  nations, 

offense    against,    Congress   may   provide   punishment   for,   art.   1, 

sec.  8,  cl.  10,  p.  190. 
piracy,  p.  190. 
slave  trade  not  piracy,  p.  190. 


Index.  933 

Laws, 

Congress  may  provide  for  execution  of,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  15,  p.  201. 
and    of   powers    vested    in    government     or    any    department   or 

officer,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  18,  p.  212. 
of   United  States  President  to  see  faithful  execution   of,  art.   2, 

sec.  3,  cl.  1,  p.  493. 
judicial  power  to  extend  to  all  eases  arising  under,  art.  3,  sec.  2, 

cl.   1,  p.   517. 
Legal  tender, 

power  of  Congress  to  create,  p.  90. 

may   make    treasury   notes   a,   p.   90. 

contracts  to  pay  in  specie  not  solvable  in  legal  tender  notes,  p. 

91. 
inhibition  as  to  states,  art.  1,  sec.  10,  cl.  1,  pp.  239,  249. 
statutes  creating  are  void,  p.  250. 
Legislation, 

power  of,  vested  in  Congress,  art.  1,  sec.  1,  p.  38. 

political  power  not  subject  to  judicial  interference,  p.  501. 

grant  of  powers,  how  construed,  p.  77. 

exclusive  in   Congress,  over  District  of  Columbia,  art.   1,   seo.  S, 

cl.  17,  p.  205. 
and  over  places  purchased  for  forts,  arsenals,  etc.,  art.  1,  sec.  8, 

cl.  17,  p.  205. 
Congress  to  make  laws  necessary  for  operation  of  powers  of  gov- 
ernment, art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  18,  p.  212. 
may   enforce    article   prohibiting   slavery,   Amdt.   art.   13,   sec.    2, 

p.  694. 
may  enforce   Fourteenth   Amendment,   Amdt.   art.    14,   sec.   5,   p. 

737. 
may  enforce  Fifteenth  Amendment,  Amdt.  art.  15,  sec.  2,  p.  740. 
Legislative  department, 

powers  vested  in  Congress,  art.  1,  see.  1,  p.  38. 

House  of  Eepresentatives,  how  composed,  art.  1.  sec.  2,  cl.  1,  p.  38. 

electors  of,  who  are,  p.  39. 

qualifications  of  members  of  House,  art.  1,  sec.  2,  cl.  2,  p.  40. 

representatives,  how  apportioned  among  states,  art.  1,  sec.  2,  cl. 

3,   p.   44;    repealed,   Amdt.   art.    14,   sec.    2,   p.   734. 
vacancies,  how  filled,  art.  1,  sec.  2,  cl.  4,  p.  46. 
shall  choose  its  own  officers,  art.  1,  sec.  2,  cl.  5,  p.  48. 
Senate,  how  composed,  art.  1,  sec.  3,  cl.  1,  p.  49. 
classes  of  senators,  art.  1,  sec.  3,  cl.  2,  p.  51. 
vacancy,  how  filled,  p.  51. 

qualification  for  senator,  art.  1,  sec.  3,  el.  3,  p.  53. 
Vice-President   to   be   President   of   Senate,   art.   1,   see.   3,   cl.   4, 

p.  54. 
Senate  to  choose  its  own  officers,  art.  1,  sec    3,  cl.  5,  p.  54. 


936  Index. 

Legislative  department — Continued. 

as  a  court  of  impeachment,  office  of,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  el.  6,  p.  54. 

judgment  of,  in  cases  of  impeachment,  art.  1,  sec.  3,  el.  7,  p.  54. 
Legislative  power, 

to  be  vested  in  Congress,  art.  1,  sec.  1,  p.  38. 

mode  of  exercise,  p.  72. 

limitations  on,  p.  78. 

delegation  of,  p.  79. 
Letters  of  marque  and  reprisal, 

Congress  may  grant,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  11,  p.  193. 

state  prohibited  from  granting,  art.  1,  sec.  10,  cl.  1,  p.  239. 
Liberty, 

purpose  of  constitution  to  secure,  preamble,  p.  35. 

defined,  p.  647. 

person  not  to  be  deprived  of,  without  due  process  of  law,  Amdt. 
art.  5,  pp.  627,  641. 

of  whom,  entitled  to  protection,  p.  647. 

amendment  construed,  p.  641. 

state  cannot  deprive  person  of,  etc.,  Amdt.  art.  14,  sec.  1,  pp.  696, 
709. 

purpose  of  amendment,  p.  696. 
Licenses, 

state  authority  over,  pp.  296,  441. 

license  not  a  contract,  p.  296. 

state  may  impose  license  taxes,  p.  138. 

from  United  States,  effect  and  operation  of,  p.  441. 
Liens, 

created  by  law  are  subject  to  legislative  control,  p.  426. 

repeal  of  judgment  lien  law  valid,  p.  286. 
Life, 

no  person  to  be  deprived  of,  without  due  process  of  law,  Amdt. 
art.    5,    sec.    1,    p.    627. 

what  included  in  term  as  here  used,  p.  646. 

no  person  to  be  twice  put  in  jeopardy  of,  Amdt.  art.  5,  pp.  627, 
632. 

prohibition   applied   to  states,  Amdt.   14,  sec.  1,  p.   696. 
Limitation, 

statutes  of,  when  do  not  impair  obligation  of  contract,  p.  406. 

suspension  of  acts,  power  of  Congress  to  provide  for,  pp.  196,  216. 

of  powers  of  general  government,  art.  1,  sec.  9,  cl.  1-8,  pp.  221-238. 

of  powers  of  state  sovereignty,  art.  1,  sec.  10,  cl.  1-3,  pp.  239-458. 

of  powers  of   Congress,  Amdt.  arts.  1-10,  pp.  619-685. 

of  judicial  power  of  United  States,  Amdt,  art  11,  p.  686. 

Loss  of  slave, 

claim  for,  illegal  and  void,  Amdt.  art.  14,  sec.  4,  p.  734. 


Index.  937 

Lotteries, 

tickets  and  circulars  may  be  excluded  from  mails,  p.  175. 
Congress  may  forbid  interstate  commerce  in  lottery  tickets,  p» 
109. 

Magazines,  arsenals,  etc., 

Congress  to  have  special  jurisdiction,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  17,  p.  205. 

jurisdiction   over   sites,   p.   207. 

jurisdiction   exclusive,  p.   210. 
Mails, 

Congress  may  provide  for  carriage  of,  p.  175. 

may  prohibit  transportation  of  certain  circulars  in,  p.  175. 

such  action  not  interference  with  freedom  of  press,  p.  175. 

plenary  power  of   Congress,   p.   175. 

concurrent  power  of  states  to  punish  depredations,  p.  176. 
Majority, 

of  each  House  to  constitute  a  quorum,  art.  1,  sec.  5,  cl.  1,  p.  58. 

smaller  number  may  adjourn,  and  compel  attendance,  art.  1,  sec. 

5,  cl.  1,  p.  58. 

quorum  of  House  in  case  of  election  of  President,  Amdt.  art.  12, 

pp.  690,  691. 
of  Senate  in  case  of  election  of  Vice-President,  Amdt.  art.  12,  pp. 

690,  691. 
two-thirds  of  Senate  on  trial  of  impeachment,  art.  1,  sec.  3,  cL 

6,  p.  54. 
Maritime  contract, 

jurisdiction  over,  p.  537. 
Maritime  jurisdiction, 

judicial  power  to  extend  to,  art.  3,  sec.  5,  cl.  1,  p.  517. 

over  maritime  contracts,  p.  537. 
Marque  and  reprisal, 

Congress  may  grant  letters  of,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  11,  p.  193. 

no  state  shall  grant  letters  of,  art.  1,  sec.  10,  cl.  1,  p.  239. 
Marriage, 

between  Indians,  laws  regulating,  p.  151. 

statute  creating  new  cause  for  divorce  not  ex  post  facto,  p.  258. 

marriage  not  a  contract  within  obligation  clause,  p.  286. 

regulated  by  state  laws,  p.  704. 

laws  prohibiting  between  races  valid,  p.  704. 
Marshal, 

of  United  States  cannot  be  commercial  agent  of  foreign  nation, 
p.  238. 
Martial  law, 

defined,  pp.  225,  475. 

power  of  President  to  proclaim,  p.  476. 

effect  of,  on  privilege  of  habeas  corpus,  p.  224. 


938  Index. 

Maryland, 

representatives  in  first  Congress,  art.  1,  sec.  2,  cl.  3,  p.  44. 
Massachusetts, 

representatives  in  first  Congress,  art.  1,  sec.  2,  cl.  3,  p.  44. 
Means, 

of  enforcement  of  power,  government  to  have,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl. 

18,  p.   218. 
enumeration  of  means   not  possible,  p.  215. 
Measures, 

Congress  shall  fix  standard  of,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  5,  p.  171. 
Medicine, 

right  to  practice  not  privilege  of  citizenship,  p.   706. 
Meeting  of  Congress, 

at  least  once  a  year,  art.  1,  sec.  4,  cl.  2,  p.  57. 
Merchandise, 

state  may  license  sale  of,  pp.  138,  437. 
commerce    in  original  packages,  p.  145. 
Messages, 

of   President,   p.   493. 
'•  Migration," 

defined,  p.  222. 

limitation  of  power  of  Congress,  art.  1,  sec.  9,  cl.  1,  p.  221. 
section   not  to  apply  to   state   governments,  p.   221. 
See    Chinese. 
Military  commander, 

cannot  suspend  privilege  of  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  p.  225. 
Military  government, 
what  is,  p.   225. 
Military  law, 

defined,  p.  225. 

power  of  Congress  to  prescribe,  p.  200. 
Military  reservations, 

jurisdiction   exclusive  in  government,  p.   211. 
Militia, 

Congress   shall   provide   for   calling   forth,    art.   1,   sec.   8,   cl.   15, 

p.  201. 
power  of  Congress,  when  supreme,  p.  201. 
may  be  delegated  to  President,  pp.  201,  202. 
limitation  of  power,  p.  202. 
shall    provide    for    organizing,    arming,    and    disciplining,    art.    1, 

sec.  8,  cl.  16,  p.  204. 
authority  of  government,  when  exclusive,  p.  204. 
powers  of  states,  p.  204. 

shall  provide  for  governing,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  16,  p.  204. 
status  of  militia  in  service,  p.  202. 


Index.  939 

Militia — Continued. 

to  execute  laws,  suppress  insurrections,  and  repel  invasions,  art. 

1,  sec.  8,  cl.  15,  p.  201. 

concurrent  power  of  state  to  call  out,  p.  202. 

appointment   of   officers   and   training  reserved   to   states,   art.   1, 
sec,   8,   cl.   16,  p.   204. 

discipline  to  be  prescribed  by  Congress,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  16,  p. 
204. 

maintenance  of  militia  not  a  keeping  of  troops,  p.  458. 

right  of  people  to  bear  arms  not  to  be  infringed,  Amdt.  art.  2, 
p.  622. 

right  of  state  to  maintain,  Amdt.  art.  2,  p.  622. 
Minister, 

appointment  of,  p.  481. 

jurisdiction  of  courts  over,  pp.  517,  542,  544. 

recognition  of  foreign  minister  a  political  function,  p.  461. 
Misdemeanor, 

impeachment  and  removal  for,  art.  2,  sec.  4,  el.  1,  p.  495. 

an  extraditable  offense,  p.  581. 

when  to  be  prosecuted  by  indictment,  p.  629. 
Money, 

Congress  may  borrow  on  credit  of  United  States,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl. 

2,  p.  89. 

what  power  includes,  p.  89. 
issue  of  legal  tender,  p.  90. 
may  issue  notes  to  circulate  as,  p.  90. 
definition    of,    p.   91. 

shall  have  power  to  coin,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  5,  p.  171. 
what  is  coinage,  p.  171. 

may  restrict  circulation  of   other  notes,  pp.  90,  171. 
to   be    drawn   from   treasury   only   in   consequence   of    appropria- 
tions, art.  1,  sec.  9,  cl.  7,  p.  236. 
statement  of  receipts  and  expenditures  to  be  published,  art.   1, 

sec.  9,  cl.  7,  p.  236. 
no  appropriation  for  armies  to  be  for  more  than  two  years,  art. 

1,  sec.  8,  cl.  12,  p.  197. 
states  not  to  coin  silver   or  gold,  art.  1,  sec.  10,  cl.  1,  p.  249. 
states  not  to  make  other  than  coin  a  legal  tender,  art.  1,  sec.  10, 
cl.  1,  p.  249. 
More  perfect  union, 

object  of  constitution  to  form,  preamble,  p.  36. 
construction  of  term,  p.  36. 
Municipal  bonds, 

authority  of  state  over,  p.  328. 

power  to  tax  to  pay  cannot  be  withdrawn,  p.  328. 


940  .  Index. 

Municipal  contract, 

state  authority  over,  p.  317. 
Municipal  corporation, 

Congress  cannot  tax  revenues  of,  p.  83. 

state  may  authorize  to  issue  certificates  of  indebtedness,  p.  246. 

charter  not  a  contract,  p.  309. 

subscription  to  railroad  stock,  p.  320. 

authority   of   legislature   over   ofiicers  of,    p.  315. 

over  contracts  of,  p.  317. 

over  liabilities  of,  p.  326 

over  bonds  of,  p.  328. 
Municipal  liabilities, 

authority  of  state  over,  p.  326. 
Mutiny, 

Congress  may  punish  for  attempt  to  commit,  p.  191. 

Nations, 

power  to  regulate  commerce  "with,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  3,  pp.  95,  99. 

power  to  punish  offenses  against  law  of,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  10,  p. 
190. 
National  banks, 

means  to  enforce  powers  delegated,  p.  217. 

state  cannot  tax,  pp.  84,  93. 
National  conscription, 

Congress  may  authorize,  p.  197. 
National  militia, 

how  constituted,  p.  202. 
Naturalization, 

Congress  to  establish  uniform  rule  of,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  4,  p.  153. 

nature   of  proceeding,  p.   153. 

effect  of  p.  156. 

extent  of  power,  p.  154. 

persons  entitled,  p.  153. 

citizens  by,  to  be   citizens   of  United   States,   and   states  where 
they  reside,  Amdt.  art.  14,  sec.  1,  p.  696. 

purposes  of  amendment,  p.  698. 
Naval  forces, 

Congress  shall  make  rules  and  regulations  for,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl. 
14,  p.  200. 
Navigable  rivers, 

license  to  erect  dams  in,  is  revocable,  p.  97. 

test  of  navigability,  p.  97. 

state  may  erect  drawbridge,  pp.  113,  114. 
Navigable  waters, 

of  state  and  United  States,  distinguished,  p.   112. 

power  of  Congress  over,  p.  97. 


Index.  941 

Navigation, 

a  part  of  commerce,  p.  96. 

power  of  Congress  to  regulate,  p.  96. 
Navy, 

Congress  to  provide  and  maintain,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  13,  p.  199. 
Necessity, 

test  of  incidental  powers,  p.  213. 
Negroes, 

not  embraced  in  term  "people  of  the  United  States,"  p.  35. 

protection    of,   primary   purpose    of    Thirteenth,   Fourteenth    and 
Fifteenth      Amendments,   pp.    693,   696,   738. 
See    Slavery. 
New  Hampshire, 

representatives  in  first  Congress,  art.  1,  sec.  2,  cl.  3,  p.  44. 
New  Jersey, 

representatives  in  first  Congress,  art.  1,  sec.  2,  cl.  3,  p.  44. 
New  States, 

may  be  admitted  by  Congress,  art.  4,  sec.  3,  cl.  1,  p.  593. 

not  to  be  formed  within  jurisdiction  of  another  without  consent 
of  Congress,  art.  4,  sec.  3,  cl.  1,  p.  593. 

nor  be  formed  by  junction  of  two  states  without  consent,  art.  4, 
sec.  3,  cl.  1,  p.  593. 

title  to  soil  under  tide  waters,  vests  in,  p.  596. 
New  York, 

representatives  in  first  Congress,  art.  1,  see.  2,  cl.  3,  p.  44. 
Nobility, 

titles  of,  not  to  be  granted  by  United  States,  art.  1,  sec.  9,  cl. 
8,  p.  238. 

no  state  to  grant  title  of,  art.  1,  sec.  10,  cl.  1,  p.  239. 
Nominations, 

to  office  by  President,  art.  2,  sec.  2,  cl.  2,  p.  481. 
North  Carolina, 

representatives  in  first  Congress,  art.  1,  sec.  2,  cl.  3,  p.  44. 
Number  of  electors, 

for  President  and  Vice-President,  art.  2,  sec.  1,  cl.  2,  p.  464. 

Oath  of  office, 

of  President,  art.  2,  sec.  1,  cl.  8,  p.  467. 

exclusively  for  the  President,  p.   467. 

Senate  may  question  member-elect's   capacity  to  take,  p.   60. 

whatl  officers  to  take,  art.  6,  sec.  1,  cl.  3,  p.  615. 

provision  directory,  p.  615. 
Oath  or  affirmation, 

senators  on  trial  of  impeachment  to  be  on,  art.  1,  sec.  3,  cl.   6, 
p.    54. 


W2  Index. 

Oath  or  affirmation — Continued. 

warrants  to  be  supported  by,  Amdt.  art.  4,  p.  624. 

to  support  the  constitution,  art.  6,  el.  3,  p.  615. 

to  be  taken  by  all  officers,  p.  615. 

effect   of  omission  to  take,  p.  615. 

provisions   of   state    constitutions,   requiring   test-oaths,    void,   p. 
615. 

religious  test  not  to  be  required  as  a  qualification  for  office,  art. 
6,  el.  3,  p.  615. 

to  be  taken  by  members  of  Congress,  art.  6,  sec.  1,  cl.  3,  p.  615. 
Objections  by  President, 

on  return  of  bill,  art.  1,  sec.  7,  cl.  2,  p.  72. 
Obligations, 

existing,  ratified  by  constitution,  art.  6,  cl.  1,  p.  608. 

incurred  in  aid  of  rebellion,  void,  Amdt.  art.  14,  sec.  4,  p.  736. 
Obligations  of  contracts, 

Congress   not   inhibited   from*  violating,   pp.   161,   263. 

Congress   may   change   currency  in  which   to   discharge   contract, 
p.  91. 

state  constitution  cannot  impair,  p.  269. 

amendment   to,   cannot   impair,   p.    270. 

not  to  be  impaired  by  state  legislation,  art.  1,  sec.  10,  cl.  1,  pp. 
239,  263. 

of  other  things  than  contracts  not  protected,  p.  284. 

remedial  laws  valid,  p.  273. 

validity,  construction,  and  remedy  are  parts  of,  p.  384. 

"obligation"  defined,  p.  3S4. 

"impair"    defined,   p.    386. 

degree   of   impairment,   p.   389. 

discharge  of  contract  is  an  impairment,  p.   389. 

giving  diminished  value  or  devesting  prior  liens  is,  p.  386. 

releasing  one  party  from  any  stipulation  in,  is,  p.  387. 

validity  affected  by  subsequent  statute  of  frauds,  p.  388. 

any   variation   postponing    or    imposing    conditions   is,   p.    387. 

any  statute  in  contravention  is,  p.  386. 

what  not  impairment,  p.   391. 

remedy  as  part  of  obligation,  p.  396. 

remedy,  how  far  may  be  changed,  p.  398. 

what  not  impairment  of  remedy,  p.  402. 

statute  of  limitations,  p.  406. 

exemption  laws,  when  invalid,  p.  409. 

stay  laws,  how  far  invalid,  p.  413. 

insolvency  laws,  when  valid,  p.  417. 

mortgage  and  redemption  laws,  p.  422. 

lien  laws,  p.  426. 

rights  of  action  and  defenses,  p.  428. 


Index.  943 

Obligations  of  contracts — Continued. 

laws  regulating  judicial  proceedings,  when  valid,  p.  434. 
police   regulations,   when   valid,   p.   437. 
Occupations, 

state  may  license  exercise  of,  pp.  138,  441. 

regulation  of  not  forbidden  by  Fourteenth  Amendment,  p.  717. 
Offenses, 

against  law   of  nations,   Congress  may  provide   punishment   for, 

art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  10,  p.  190. 
President  may  grant  reprieves   or  pardons,  art.   2,   sec.   2,  cl.  1, 

pp.  469,  476. 
no  person  to  be  put  twice  in  jeopardy,  Amdt.  art.  5,  p.  627. 
jeopardy  construed,  p.  632. 
Office, 

who  ineligible  for  members  of  House  of  Representatives,  art.  1, 

sec.  2,  cl.  2,  p.  40. 
qualification  for,  p.  40. 
senator   and   representative   not   eligible   for   other   office,   art.   1, 

sec.  6,  cl.  2,  p.  69. 
holder  of  United   States   office  not   eligible   for  Congress,  art.   1, 

sec.  6,  cl.  2,  p.  69. 
if  created  during  his  term,  art.  1,  sec.  6.  cl.  2,  p.  69. 
holder  of,  not  to  accept  present  or  emolument  from  foreign  king. 

etc.,  art.  1,  sec.  9,  cl.  8,  p.  23S. 
term  of,  of  President  and  Vice-President,  art.  2,  sec.  1,  cl.  1,  p. 

458. 
of  President,  when  to  devolve  on  Vice-President,  art.  2,  sec.  1, 

cl.  6,  p.  467. 
who  precluded  from  office  of  elector,  art.  2,  sec.  1,  cl.  2,  p.  464. 
appointment   to  and   removal  from,  power   of   President,   art.   2, 

sec.  2,  cl.  2,  pp.  481,  485. 
clause  construed,  p.  485. 

appointment  to,  not  a  contract    irrevocable,  p.  287. 
vacancy  in,  when  may  be  filled  by  President,  art.  2,  sec.  2,  cl.  3, 

p.  492. 
commissions  to  expire  at  end  of  next   session,  art.  2,  sec.  2,  cl. 

3,  p.  492. 
who  ineligible  as  senator,  representative,  or  presidential  elector, 

Amdt.  art.  14,  sec.  3,  p.  735. 
religious   test   not   required   as  qualification  for,   art.   6,  cl.   3,  p. 

615. 
oath  of,  art.  6,  cl.  3,  p.  615. 

Officers, 

Congress    may    vest    appointment    of    inferior    officers    where    it 

thinks  proper,  art.  2,  sec.  2.  cl.  2,  pp.  482,  489. 
President  to  commission,  p.  493. 


944  Index. 

Officers — Continued. 

removal  on  impeachment  for  certain  crimes,  art.  2,  sec.  4,  p.  495 

■who  removable  on  impeachment,  art.  2,  sec.  4,  p.  495. 

of  House  of  Representatives  to  be  chosen  by  itself,  art.  1,  sec. 
2,  el.  5,  p.  48. 

S&nate  to  choose  its  own,  art.  1,  sec.  3,  el.  5,  p.  54. 

civil,  of  United  States,  who  are,  p.  485. 
Operation, 

of  constitution,  p.  32. 
Opinion  of  officers, 

of  executive  departments,  may  be  required  by  President,  art.  2, 
sec.  2,  cl.  1,  p.  469. 
Orders, 

resolutions  and  vote  to  be  presented  to  President,  art.  1,  sec.  7, 
cl.  3,  p.  75. 
Ordinance, 

of  secession,  null  and  void,  p.  241. 
Organizing, 

denned,  p.  204. 

militia,  Congress  to  provide  for,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  16,  p.  204. 
Original  jurisdiction, 

of  supreme  court,  art.  3,  sec.  2,  cl.  2,  p.  542. 
Original  package, 

commerce  in  subject  to  congressional  action  only,  p.   145. 

Overt  act, 

necessary  to  treason,  art.  3,  sec.  3,  cl.  1,  p.  555. 

Oysters, 

state  may  regulate  planting  and  growth  of,  p.  129. 
See  Fisheries. 
Papers, 

security  from  unreasonable  searches,  Amdt.  art.  4,  p.  624. 

Pardons, 

President  may  grant,   except  in   cases   of   impeachment,   art.   2, 
sec.  2,  cl.  1,  pp.  476,  479. 

pardoning  power  construed,  p.  476. 

effect  of  pardon,  p.  476. 
Passengers, 

state  no  power  to  levy  tax  on,  p.  116. 

power  of  Congress  to  pass  laws  concerning,  p.  108. 

State  cannot  impose  burdens  and  conditions  on,  p.  116. 

state  may  exclude  criminals  and  paupers,  p.  119. 

"separate  coach  laws"  valid,  p.  706. 
Patent  rights, 

Congress  may  pass  laws  securing,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  8,  p.  178. 

power  of  Congress  defined,  p.  183. 


Index.  945 

Tatent  rights — Continued. 

rights  of  inventors  secured,  p.  184. 
states'  powers  with  reference  to,  p.  179. 
police  powers  not  displaced  by  patent  laws,  p.  186. 
Payment, 

if  public  debt  not  to  be  questioned,  Amdt.  art.  14,  sec.  4,  p.  736. 
of  pensions,  not  to  be  questioned,  Amdt,  art.  14,  see.  4,  p.  736. 
Peddlers, 

and  drummers  distinguished,  p.  141. 
state  may  impose  license  tax  on,  p.  140. 
Penalties, 

of  absentees  in  Congress,  art.  1,  sec.  5,  cl.  1,  p.  58. 
Pensions  and  bounties, 

debts  for,  not  to  be  questioned,  Amdt.  art,  14,  sec.  4,  p.  736. 
Congress  may  provide  for  pensions,  p.  216. 
Pennsylvania, 

representatives  at  first  Congress,  art.  1,  sec.  2,  cl.  3,  p.  44. 
People, 

constitution  formed  by,  preamble,  p.  35. 

of  United  States,  who  are,  p.  35. 

sovereignty  of,  dates  from  revolution,  p.  129. 

right  of  peaceable  assemblage  shall  not  be  abridged,  Amdt.  art. 

1,  pp.  619,  621. 
right  to  bear  arms  not  to  be  infringed,  Amdt.  art.  2,  sec.  1,  p. 

622. 
to  be  secure  in  person  and  property  from  unreasonable  seizures 

.•mil  search,  Amdt.  art.  4,  p.  624. 
power  of,  as  to  amendments  to  constitution,  unlimited,  p.  606. 
right  of,  to  petition  for  redress  of  grievances,  p.  621. 
rights  not  disparaged  by  enumeration  of  powers  in  constitution, 

Amdt.  art.  9,  p.  672. 
powers  not  delegated  nor  prohibited  are  reserved  to  the,  Amdt. 

art.  10,  p.  673. 
all  powers  emanate  from,  pp.  36,  606. 
Persons, 

judicial  power  over,  p.  525. 
who  are,  p.  727. 
Personal  rights, 

of   security  against   unreasonable   searches,   seizures,   etc.,  Amdt. 

art.  4,  p.  624. 
of  parties   accused   of   crime,  Amdt.   art.   5,  p.   627. 
rights  as  to  property,  Amdt.   art.  5,  p.   627. 
jeopardy  construed,  p.  632. 

party  not  to  be  compelled  to  be  witness  against  himself,  p.  639* 
depriving  of  life,  liberty,  etc.,  p.  641. 
Notes  on  Constitution — 60 


946  Index. 

Personal  rights — Continued. 

"due  process  of  law"  defined,  p.  641. 

right  of  eminent  domain,  p.  650. 

compensation  on   condemnation,  p.  658. 

accused  entitled  to  speedy  trial,  Amdt.  art.  6,  pp.  663,  664. 

to  be  confronted  by  witness,  Amdt.  art.  6,  sec.  1,  pp.  663,  666. 

to  have  compulsory  process,  Amdt.  art.  6,  sec.  1,  pp.  663,  666. 

to  have  assistance  of  counsel,  Amdt.  art.  6,  sec.  1,  pp.  663,  667. 

provisions  of  section  applicable  to  federal  powers  only,  p.  663. 

right  of  trial  by  jury  in  civil  actions,  Amdt.  art.  7,  p.  668. 

excessive  bail  not  to  be  required,  Amdt.  art.  8,  sec.  1,  p.  675. 
Petition  for  redress, 

right  not  to  be  abridged,  Amdt.  art.  1,  pp.  619,  621. 
Pilots, 

power  of  CongTess  as  to,  p.  106. 

concurrent  power  of  states,  p.  104. 
Piracies, 

Congress  may  define  and  punish,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  el.  10,  p.  190. 

definition  of,  what  constitutes,  p.  190. 

slave  trade  not,  under  law  of  nations,  p.  191. 

felonies  on  high  seas,  what  are,  p.  191. 
Place  of  trial, 

crimes  to  be  tried  where,  p.  553. 
Police  power, 

in  genera],  p.  117. 

extent  over  trade  and  commerce,  p.  117. 

cannot  be  abandoned,  p.  438. 

as  affecting  contract  obligations,  p.  437. 

not  impaired  by  Fourteenth  Amendment,  pp.  698,  716. 
Political  power, 

not  subject  to  judicial  interference,  p.  501. 
See  Congress;  Government. 
Polygamy, 

laws  prohibiting,  valid,  p.   620. 

Ports, 

preference   not   to   be   given   by  any  regulation   of   commerce  or 
revenue,  art.  1,  sec.  9,  cl.  6,  p.  234. 

vessels  clearing  not  to  pay  duties,  art.  1,  sec.  9,  cl.  6,  p.  234. 
Pcstoflices  and  post-roads, 

Congress  shall  establish,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  7,  p.  175. 

means  necessary  to  exercise  of  power  enumerated,  p.  219. 
Postage  rates, 

bill  establishing  not  a  revenue  bill,  p.  71. 
Powers, 

constitution  a  grant  of,  p.  27. 


Index.  947 

Powers — Continued. 

existence  of,  how  deduced,  p.  77. 
delegation  of,  p.  79. 

not  delegated,  are  reserved  to  people,  Amdt.  art.  10,  p.  677. 
construction   for  purpose   of   conferring,   to  be   resorted  to   with 
caution,  p.  28. 

See  Congress;  President;  States. 
Powers  of  government, 
construed,  p.  77. 

incidental  to  carry  into  execution,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  18,  p.  212. 
devolved  on  people  by  the  revolution,  p.  677. 
not  delegated  nor  prohibited  to  the  states,  are  reserved  to  the 

states  or  the  people,  Amdt.  art.  10,  p.  677. 
enumeration  of,  not  to  deny  nor  disparage  others  retained,  Amdt. 

art.  9,  p.  676. 
emanate  from  the  people,  p.  677. 

See  Congress. 
Preamble, 

to  constitution,  p.  35. 
Preference, 

not  to  be  given  to  one  port  over  another,  art.  1,  sec.  9,  cl.  6,  p. 
234. 
Present, 

or    emolument   from   foreign   potentate,   not   to   be   accepted   by 
United  States  official,  art.  1,  sec.  9,  cl.  8,  p.  238. 
Presentment  or  indictment, 

necessary  to  put  party  on  trial,  Amdt.  art.  5,  pp.  627,  628. 
except  in  cases  in  land  and  naval  forces,  and  militia,  Amdt.  art. 

5,  pp.  627,  631. 
change  in  mode  of  charging  crime  not  ex  post  facto,  p.  260. 
President, 

chief  justice  to  preside  on  impeachment  of,  art.  1,  sec.  3,  cL  6,  p. 

54. 
shall  approve  and  sign  all  bills,  art.  1,  see.  7,  cl.  2,  p.  72. 
mode  of  approval,  pp.  72,  73. 

or  return  any  bill  with  his  objections,  art.  1,  sec.  7,  cl.  2,  p.  72. 
if  not  returned  within  ten  days  to  become  a  law,  art.  1,  sec.  7, 

cl.  2,  p.  72. 
proceedings  of  two  Houses  in  ease  of  a  veto,  art.  1,  sec.  7,  el.  2, 

p.  72. 
orders,  resolutions,  or  votes,  when  to  be  presented  to,  art.  1,  sec. 

7,  cl.  3,  p.  75. 
proceedings  on  return  the  same  as  on  a  bill,  art.  1,  sec.  7,  cl.  3, 

p.  75. 
amendment  to  constitution  need  not  be  approved,  p.  75. 
exclusive  judge  of  exigency  for  calling  out  militia,  pp.  201,  471. 


948  Index. 

President — Continued. 

how  to  exercise  command  of  militia,  p.  470. 

cannot  suspend  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  but  may  be  so  authorized 

by  Congress,  p.  225. 
executive  power  to  be  vested  in,  art.  2,  sec.  1,  cl.  1,  p.  459. 
term  of  office  four  years,  art.  2,  sec.  1,  cl.  1,  p.  459. 
executive  powers,  in  general,  p.  459. 
electors  of,  how  appointed,  art.  2,  sec.  1,  cl.  2,  p.  464. 
where  and  how  to  meet  and  vote,  art.  2,  sec.  1,  el.  3,  p.  465. 
superseded,  Amdt.  art.  12,  pp.  690,  691. 
time  of  choosing  electors  of,  art.  2,   sec.   1,  cl.  4,  p.  466. 
eligibility  for  office  of,  art.  2,  see.  1,  cl.  5,  p.  467. 
in  case  of  removal,  death,  etc.,  Vice-President  to  act  as,  art.  2, 

sec.  1,  cl.  6,  p.  466. 
when  Congress  may  designate  officer  to  act  as,  art.  2,  sec.  1,  cl. 

6,  p.  465. 
compensation  not  to  be  increased  or  diminished  during  term  of 

office,  art.  2,  sec.  1,  cl.  7,  p.  465. 
to  take  oath  of  office,  art.  2,  sec.  1,  cl.  8,  p.  465. 
commander-in-chief  of  army,  navy,  and  militia,  when  called  out, 

art.  2,  sec.  2,  cl.  1,  p.  469. 
may  require  opinion  of  principal  officer  of  departments,  art.  2, 

sec.  2,  cl.  1,  p.  469. 
may  grant  reprieves  or  pardons,  except  in  cases  of  impeachment, 

art,   2,  sec.  2,  cl.  1,  pp.  469,  476. 
power  as  commander-in-chief,  p.  469. 
authority  over  conquered  territory,  p.  472. 
declaring  martial  law  a  war  power  of,  p.  474. 
pardoning  power  construed,  p.  476. 
may  make  treaties  by  and  with  consent  of  Senate,  art.  2,  sec.  2, 

el.  2,  p.  481. 
treaty  defined,  p.  481. 
extent  of  power,  p.  482. 
may  appoint  officers  by  and  with  consent  of  Senate,  art.  2,  sec. 

2,  cl.  2,  p.  481. 
power  of  appointment  and  removal  defined,  p.  485. 
may  fill  vacancies  that  happen  in  recess  of  Senate,  art.  2,  sec. 

2,  cl.  3,  p.  492. 

commissions  to  fill  vacancies,  when  to  expire,  art.  2,  sec.  2,  cl. 

3,  p.  492. 

to  give  information  and   recommend   measures   to   Congress,   art. 

2,  sec.  3,  cl.  1,  p.  493. 
when  may  convene  both  or  either  House,  art.  2,  sec.  3,  cl.  1,  p. 

493. 
when  may  adjourn  Congress,  art.  2,  sec.  3,  cl.  1,  p.  493. 
shall  receive  ambassadors  and  public  ministers.,  art.  2,  sec.  3,  cl. 

1,  p.  493. 


Index.  949 

President — Continued. 

shall  take,  care  that  laws  be  faithfully  executed,  art.  2,  sec.  3, 

cl.  1,  p.  493. 
shall  commission  all  officers,  art.  2,  sec.  3,  cl.  1,  p.  493. 
shall  be  removed   on   conviction  on  impeachment,  art.   2,  sec.   4, 

cl.  1,  p.  495. 
President  and  Vice-President, 

manner  of  choosing,  art.  2,  see.  1,  cl.  2,  p.  464. 

who  disqualified  to  be  elector,  art.  2,  sec.  1,  cl.  2,  p.  464. 

Congress  may  determine  time  of  choosing  electors,  art.  2,  sec.  1, 

cl.  4,  p.  466. 
electors  to  meet  and  vote  by  ballot,  Amdt.  art.  12,  p.  690. 
one  at   least  not  to  be   an  inhabitant   of  state,   Amdt.   art.   12, 

p.  690. 
electors  to  name  in  distinct  ballots  persons  voted  for,  Amdt.  art. 

12,  pp.  690,  691. 
distinct  list  of  votes  to  be  made,  Amdt.  art.  12,  pp.  690,  691. 
to  be  signed,  certified,  and  transmitted  to  President  of  Senate, 

Amdt.  art.  12,  pp.  690,  691. 
duty  of  President   of   Senate   on  receipt   of  returns,   Amdt.   art. 

12,  p.  690. 
person  having  greatest  number  of  votes  to  be,  Amdt.  art.  12,  pp. 

690,  691. 
proceedings,  if  no  person  has  a  majority,  Amdt.  art.  12,  p.  691. 
in  choosing  President  by  the  legislature,  each  state  to  have  one 

vote,  Amdt.  art.  12,  pp.  690,  691. 
quorum  for  this  purpose  to  be  two-thirds   of  states,  Amdt.  art. 

12,  p.  691. 
and  a  majority  of  states  required  to  elect,  Amdt.  art.  12,  p.  691. 
in  case  of  no  choice  being  made,  Vice-President  to  act,  Amdt. 

art.  12,  p.  691. 
President  of  Senate, 

Vice-President  shall  be,  art.  1,  sec.  3,  cl.  4,  p.  54. 

when  Senate  may  choose  pro  tempore,  art.  1,  sec.  3,  cl.  5,  p.  54. 

shall  have  no  vote  except  on  equal  division,  art.  1,  sec.  3,  cl.  4, 

p.  54. 
duty  on  return  of  votes  of  presidential  electors,  Amdt.  art.  12, 

p.  690. 
Press, 

freedom  of,  not  to  be  abridged,  Amdt.  art.  1,  pp.  619,  620. 
Private  property, 

not  to  be  taken  for  public  use  without  compensation,  Amdt.  arc. 

5,  pp.  627,  658. 
Privilege, 

of  members  of  Congress  from  arrest,  except,  art.  1,  sec.  6,  cl.  1, 

p.  66. 


950  Index. 

Privilege — Continued. 

members  not  to  be  questioned  for  speech  or  debate,  art.  1,  sec. 

6,  el.  1,  pp.  66,  68. 
extent  of  privilege,  pp.  66,  67. 

of  writ  of  habeas  corpus  and  writ  itself  distinguished,  p.  223. 
of    witness,    pp.    627,    639. 
Privileges  and  immunities, 

of  vessels  in  ports  of  states  to  be  common  and  equal,  p.  234. 

of  citizens  of  states,  art.  4,  sec.  2,  cl.  1,  p.  569. 

"citizen"  defined,  p.  570. 

construction  of  term  privileges  and  immunities,  pp.  572,  702. 

extent  of  restriction  on  states,  p.  575. 

soldiers  not  to  be  quartered  without   consent   of  owner,  Amdt. 

art.  3,  p.  623. 
persons  not  to  be  put  twice  in  jeopardy  for  same  offense,  Amdt. 

art.  5,  pp.  627,  632. 
nor  be  deprived  of  property  without  due  process  of  law,  Amdt. 

art.  5,  pp.  627,  641. 
citizens  of  United  States  are  citizens  of  state  where  they  reside, 

Amdt.  art.  14,  sec.  1,  pp.  696,  698. 
not  to  be  abridged  by  state  laws,  Amdt.  art.  14,  sec.  1,  pp.  696, 

702. 
state  not  to   deprive   of  life,  etc.,  without   due  process  of  law, 

Amdt.  art.  14,  sec.  1,  pp.  696,  708. 
nor  deny  to  any  person  equal  protection  of  the  laws,  Amdt.  art. 

14,  sec.  1,  pp.  696,  728. 
section  applies  to  citizens  of  United  States,  p.  699. 
purpose  of  amendment,  p.  698. 
civil  rights  protected,  p.  703. 
equal  protection  of  the  laws,  construed,  p.  728. 
Prizes, 

Congress  may  make  rules  concerning,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  11,  pp. 

193,  196. 
Probable  cause, 

what  is,  p.  625. 
Procedure, 

Congress  may  regulate,  in  federal  courts,  pp.  187,  189. 
may  adopt  state  procedure,  pp.  498,  507. 
change  in  criminal  procedure  not  ex  post  facto,  p.  259. 
regulation  by  state  not  impairment  of  obligation,  p.  398. 
Process. 

necessary  to  search,  p.  624. 
Process  of  law, 

person  not  to  be  deprived  of  life,  etc.,  without,  Amdt.  art.  5,  pp. 

627,  641. 
provision  made  applicable  to  states,  Amdt.  art.  14,  sec.  1,  p.  696. 
for  obtaining  witnesses,  rights  of  accused,  Amdt.  art.  6,  pp.  663, 
666. 


Index.  951 

Profession, 

state  may  license  the  exercise  of,  pp.  138,  259. 
Progress  of  science  and  art, 

Congress  to  have  power  to  promote,  art.  1,  see.  8,  cl.  8,  p.  178. 
Property, 

parties  not  to  be  deprived  of,  without  due  process  of  law,  Am«t. 

art.   5,   pp.   627,   643. 
protection  of  right  to,  p.  646. 
depriving  of,  construed,  p.   648. 
"due  process  of  law,"  defined,  p.  641. 
right  of  eminent  domain,  p.  650. 
compensation  on  condemnation,  p.  658. 
states  inhibited  from  depriving  of  without  due  process  of  law, 

Amdt.  art.  14,  sec.  1,  pp.  696,  712. 
protection  of  citizens,  p.  698. 
citizens,  who  are,  p.  698. 
equal  protection  of  the  laws  as  to,  p.  728. 
Property  of  United  States, 

Congress  may  dispose   of,  and  make  rules  and  regulations  for, 

art.  4,  sec.  3,  cl.  2,  p.  596. 
terms  in  clause,  construed,  pp.  596,  597. 
Prosecutions, 

accused  to  have  speedy  and  public  trial,  Amdt.  art.  6,  pp.  663, 

664. 
to  be   tried  by  jury  in  state  or  district  where  crime  was  com- 
mitted, Amdt.  art.  6,  p.  663. 
to  be  informed  of  nature   and  cause  of  accusation,  Amdt.  art. 

6,  pp.  663,  664. 
to  be  confronted  with  witnesses,  Amdt.  art.  6,  pp.  663,  666. 
to  have  compulsory  process  for  witnesses,  Amdt.  art.  6,  pp.  663, 

666. 
to  have  counsel  for  his  defense,  Amdt.  art.  6,  pp.  663,  666. 
Protection, 

of  interests  of  states  devolves  on  federal  government,  p.  603. 
against   invasion   and   from   domestic   violence,   art.   4,  see.  4,  p. 

663. 
of  life,  liberty,  and  property  of  persons,  Amdt.  art.  5,  p.  627. 
Public  debt, 

of  United  States,  payment  not  to  be  questioned,  Amdt.  art.  14, 

sec.  4,  p.  736. 

Public  grants, 

as  contracts,  p.  291. 

may  be  exempted  from  taxation,  p.  302. 
Public  lands, 

power  to  dispose  of,  p.  596. 


U52  Index. 

Public  lands — Continued. 

state  may  exempt  purchaser  of,  from  taxation,  p.  302. 

effect    of    exemption    upon    subsequent    purchaser,   p.    302. 
Public  ministers, 

power  of  President  to  appoint,  art.  2,  sec.  2,  cl.  2,  p.  481. 

extent  of  judicial  power  over,  art.  3,  sec.  2,  cl.  2,  pp.  481,  543. 
Public  moneys, 

statements  of,  to  be  published,  art.  1,  sec.  9,  cl.  7,  p.  237. 
Public  policy, 

not  a  guide  in  construction,  p.  30. 
Public  ships, 

not  subject  to  local  jurisdiction,  p.  200. 
Public  use, 

property  not  to  be  taken  for,  without  just  compensation,  Amdt. 
art.  5,  pp.  627,  658. 
Punishment, 

judgment  on  impeachment  not  to  bar  trial,  etc.,  art.  1,  sec.  3, 
cl.  7,  p.  54. 

eruel  and  unusual,  prohibited,  Amdt.  art.  8,  p.  675. 

for  treason,  Congress  to  declare,  art.  3,  sec.  3,  cl.  2,  p.  559. 

Congress  may  prescribe  for  offenses  against  commerce,  p.  215. 

for  crimes  on  the  high  seas,  p.  190. 

for  military  and  naval  offenses,  p.  200. 

for  fraud  under  pension  laws,  p.  216. 

for   crimes   and   offenses   impeding   operation    of   government,   p. 
216. 

power   of,   incidental   to    operation    of   sovereignty,   p.    218. 

statutes,   when   ex   post   facto,   p.   254. 

increased   for  second   offense — not   ex  post  facto,  p.   255. 

"punishment"  denned,  p.  254. 

Qualifications, 

no  religious  test  shall  be  required  for  office,  art.  6,  cl.  3,  p.  615. 

of   electors   and  members   of  House    of   Kepresentatives,   art.    1, 
sec.  2,  cl.  1,  pp.  39,  40. 

state  rules  adopted  by  constitution,  p.  39. 

of  members  of  House  as  to  age  and  inhabitancy,  art.  1,  sec.  2, 
cl.  2,  p.  40. 

of  senators  as  to  age  and  inhabitancy,  art.  1,  sec.  3,  cl.  3,  p.  53. 

state   cannot   add  to   constitutional  requirements,  p.   53. 

each  House  to  judge  of,  art.  1,  sec.  5,  cl.  1,  p.  58. 

of  President  of  United   States,  art.  2,  sec.  1,  cl.  5,  p.  467. 

of   Vice-President,   Amdt.   art.   12,  p.   691. 
Quarantine, 

state  may  legislate  as  to,  p.  124. 
Quartering  soldiers, 

in  time   of  peace,  Amdt.  art.  3,  p.   623. 


Index.  953 

Quartering  soldiers — Continued. 

in  time  of  war,  manner  to  be  prescribed  by  Congress,  Amdt.  art. 

3,  p.  623. 
Quorum, 

a  majority  of  each  House  constitutes,  art.  1,  sec.  5,  el.  1,  p.  58. 
a  less   number  may  adjourn  and  compel  attendance,  art.  1,  sec. 

5,  cl.  1,  p.  58. 
in    case   of   choice   of  President,  Amdt.   art.   12,  p.   691. 
to  elect  Vice-President  by  Senate,  Amdt.  art.  12,  p.  691. 
majority  of  whole  number  necessary  for  choice,  Amdt.   art.   12, 

pp.  690,  691. 

Race  or  color, 

rights  of  citizens  not  to  be   denied   on   account   of,  Amdt.   art. 
15,  sec.  1,  p.  738. 
Railroads, 

subjects  of  commerce  power,  p.  107. 

extent  of  powers  of  state  over,  pp.  118,  718. 

state  may  fix  maximum  rates  of  freight,  pp.  114,  365,  718. 

may  forbid  running  of  trains  on  Sunday,  p.  120. 

may  authorize  appointment  of  railroad  commissioners,  p.  367. 

state  may  tax  property  of,  p.  130. 

subject  to  public  supervision,  p.  119. 

statute   may  render   liable   for  injury  to   person   or  property,  p. 
720. 

legislature  may  authorize  municipal  corporation  to  subscribe  for 
stock  of,  p.  320. 

charter  a  contract,  p.  363. 

consolidated  company,  what  law  to  govern,  p.  364. 

immunity  from   taxation   in   charter,   p.   348. 

effect  of  exemption  from  taxation,  p.  354. 

reserved  power  to  alter  or  amend  charter,  p.  373. 

reserved  power  to  repeal,  p.  382. 
Railroad  commissioners, 

legislature   may   authorize    appointment    of,   p.    367. 
Raise  and  support  armies, 

power  of  Congress,  p.  197. 
Rates, 

power  of  states  to  regulate  fares  and  charges,  pp.  114,  115,  365. 

restrictions  on  power  by  Fourteenth  Amendment,  p.  718. 
Ratification  of  amendments, 

what  required,  art.  5,  p.  606. 

of  constitution,  number  of  states  required,  art.  7,  p.  616. 

names  of  states,  with  dates,  pp.  616,  617. 
Ratio  of  representation,    art.  1,  sec.  2,  cl.  3,  p.  44. 

how  apportioned  among  the  several  states,  Amdt.  art.  14,  sec.  2, 
p.   734. 


954  Index. 

Ratio    of    representation — Continued. 

Indians  not  taxed  excluded  from  count,  Amdt.  art.  14,  sec.  2, 

p.  734. 
when   reduced,   denial  of  right   to   vote,   Amdt.   art.   14,   sec.   2, 

p.  734. 
Rebellion, 

Congress  may  suspend  statute  of  limitation  during,  pp.  196,  216. 
power  of  Congress  to  suppress,  p.  201. 

power  of  Congress  to  fix  conditions  of  returning  peace,  p.  201. 
power  of  executive  as  to  calling  out  troops,  pp.  201,  471. 
privilege  of  writ  of  habeas  corpus  may  be  suspended  during,  p. 

223. 
law  affecting  life  or  property  for  participating  in.  is  a  bill  of 

attainder,  pp.  227,  251. 
state  no  right  to  secede,  pp.  240,  684. 
ordinance  of  secession  null  and  void,  p.  241. 
Confederate  states  not  a  de  facto  government,  p.  242. 
constitutional  objections  not  affected  by,  p.  240. 
what  legislation  of  rebel  states  is  valid,  p.  244. 
contracts  in  and  of,  void,  pp.  243,  244. 
states  in,  never  were  out  of  the  Union,  pp.  240,  243. 
certain  participants  disabled  from  holding  office,  Amdt.   art.  14, 

sec.  3,  p.  735. 
Congress  may  remove  disability,  Amdt.  art.  14,  sec.  3,  p.  735, 
debts  incurred  to  suppress  not  to  be  questioned,  Amdt.  art.  14, 

sec.  4,  p.  736. 
debts  incurred  in  aid  of,  illegal  and  void,  Amdt.  art.  14,  see.  4, 

p.  736. 
Receipts  and  expenditures, 

of  public  money  to  be  published,  art.  1,  sec.  9,  cl.  7,  p.  236. 
Recess  of  Senate, 

President  may  commission  to  fill  vacancies  in  office,  art.  2,  sec. 

2,  cl.  3,  p.  492. 
Reconsideration, 

of  bill  returned  by  President,  art.   1,  sec.  7,  cl.  2,  p.  72. 

Records, 

of  state,  full  faith  and  credit  to  be  given  to,  art.  4,  sec.  1,  cl. 
1,  p.  561. 
Redemption, 

right  of,  power  of  state,  p.  422. 
Redress  of  grievances, 

right  to  petition  for,  cannot  be  abridged,  Amdt.  art.  1,  pp.  619, 
621. 
Re-examination  of  causes,  art.  7,  p.  668. 

section,  to  what  apply,  p.  672. 


Index.  955 

Regulations, 

for   election  of  senators   and  representatives,  art.  1,  sec.  4,  cl. 
1,  p.  55. 

commerce  regulations,  what  are,  pp.  98,  100,  105,  116. 

police  regulations,   states'   power  to   enact,  pp.   117,  437,  716. 
Religion, 

Congress  can  make  no  laws  as  to  establishment  of,  Amdt.  art.  1, 
p.  619. 

laws  prohibiting-  polvgamy   not   objectionable,   p.   620. 

power  over,  left  with  states,  Amdt.  art.  1,  p.  619. 
Religious  tests, 

shall  never  be  required  as  qualification  for  office,  art.  6,  cl.  3, 
p.  615. 
Remedies, 

as  part  of  contract,  cannot  be  impaired,  pp.  396,  398. 

change  of,  not  necessarily  illegal,  pp.  396,  402. 

what  not  impairment  of  contract,  p.  402. 

statute  of  limitations,  p.  406. 

exemption  laws,  when  valid,  p.  409. 

stay  laws,  when  invalid,  p.  413. 

state  insolvency  laws,  p.  417. 

mortgage  and  redemption  laws,  p.  422. 

lien  laws,  p.   426. 

rights  of  action  and  defenses,  p.  428. 

state  may  regulate  right  of  appeal,  pp.  644,  711. 
Removal  from  office, 

executive  power  of,  p.  485. 

on  impeachment,   art.  2,  sec.   1,  cl.   6,  p.   467. 
Removal  of  causes, 

Congress  may  provide  for,  p.  513. 
Repeal, 

of  charter,  state  power,  p.  382. 
Representation  and  direct  taxation, 

how  apportioned,  art.  1,  sec.  2,  cl.  3,  p.  44. 

changed  by  amendment,  Amdt.  art.  14,  sec.  2,  p.  734. 

until  first  enumeration,  ratio  of,  art.  1,  sec.  2,  cl.  3,  p.  44. 

state  executive  to  issue  writs  of  election  to  fill  vacanaies,  art. 
1,  sec.  2,  cl.  4,  p.  46. 

no  state  to  be  deprived  of  equality  in  Senate,  without  consent, 
art.  5,  p.  606. 

among  several   states,   according   to   population,   Amdt.    art.   14, 
sec.    2,   p.   734. 

excluding  Indians  not  taxed,  Amdt.  art.  14,  sec.  2,  p.  734, 

basis  reduced  on  denial  of  right  to  vote,  Amdt.  art.  14,  sec.  2, 
p.  734. 


956  Index. 

Representatives, 

House  of,  a  branch  of  Congress,  art.  1,  sec.  1,  p.  38. 

qualifications  of  electors  of  members,  art.  1,  see.  2,  el.  1,  p.  39. 

construction  of  section,  p.  39. 

as  to  age  and  inhabitancy,  art.  1,  sec.  2,  el.  2,  p.  40. 

how  apportioned   among   states,   art.   1,   sec.   2,   cl.   3,  p.  44. 

apportionment  a  legislative  question,  p.  44. 

changed  by  amendment,  Amdt.  art.  14,  sec.  2,  p.   734. 

construction  of  section,  p.  44. 

may  be  expelled,  causes  for,  p.  63. 

effect   of  resignation,  p.  52. 

shall  choose  speaker  and  other  officers,  art.  1,  sec.  2,  cl.  5,  p.  48. 

shall  have  sole  power  of  impeachment,  art.  1,  sec.  2,  cl.  5,  p.  48. 

state  executive  to  issue  writs  of  election  to  fill  vacancies,  art.  1, 

sec.  2,  cl.  4,  p.  46. 
legislatures  to  prescribe  times,  places,  and  manner  of  elections, 

art,  1,  sec.  4,  cl.  1,  p.  55. 
Congress  may  alter  regulations,  except  as  to  places,  art.  1,  sec. 

4,  cl.  1,  p.  55. 
compensation  to  be  ascertained  by  law,  art.  1,  sec.  6,  cl.  1,  p. 

66. 
shall  be  privileged  from  arrest,  except,  art.  1,  sec.  6,  cl.  1,  p.  66. 
shall  not  be  questioned  for  speech  or  debate,  art.  1,  sec.  6,  el. 

1,  p.  66. 
shall  be  ineligible  for   office  created   during  their  term,   art.   1, 

sec.  6,  cl.  2,  p.  69. 
who  ineligible  to  office  of,  art.  1,  sec.  6,  cl.  2,  p.  69. 
bills  for  raising  revenue  to  originate  in  House,  art.  1,  sec.  7,  cl. 

1,  p.  71. 
ineligible  to  office   of  presidential  elector,   art.   2,  sec.   1,   cl.   2, 

p.  464. 
oath  to  be  taken  by,  art.  6,  sec.  1,  cl.  3,  p.  615. 
shall  be  bound  by  oath  to  support  constitution,  art.  6,  sec.  1,  cl. 

3,  p.  615. 
provisions   relative   to   apportionment   of,  Amdt.   art.   14,   sec.   2, 

p.  734. 
when  basis  to  be  reduced,  Amdt.  art.  14,  sec.  2,  p.  734. 
disability   for   participation   in   rebellion,   Amdt.   art.    14,   sec.   3, 

p.  735. 
may  be  removed  by  Congress,  Amdt.  art.   14,  sec.  3,  p.  735. 

Reprieves, 

President  may  grant,  except,  art.  2,  sec.  2,  cl.  1,  pp.  469,  476. 

Reprisal, 

Congress  may  grant  letters  of,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  11,  pp.  193,  196. 
no  state  shall  grant,  art.  1,  sec.  10,  cl.  1,  p.  239. 
Republican  form  of  government, 

guaranteed  to  states,  art.  4,  sec.  4,  p.  603. 


Index.  957 

Reserved  power, 

of  states  and  people,  Amdt.  art.  10,  p.  677. 

instances  of  power  reserved,  p.  681. 

no  right  of  secession,  p.  684. 

right  to  alter,  amend,  or  repeal  charter  may  be  reserved,  p.  373. 

extent  of  power  or  rights  reserved,  p.  377. 
Reserved  rights, 

enumeration  of  rights,  not  to  deny  or  disparage    others  retained, 
Amdt.  art.  9,  p.  676. 

powers  not  delegated  to  United  States  nor  prohibited  to  states 
are  reserved,  Amdt.  art.  10,  p.  677. 

powers  emanate  from  the  people,  p.  677. 

no  reversed  right  of  secession,  p.  684. 
Resignation  of  President, 

Vice-President  to  act,  art.  2,  sec.  1,  cl.  6,  p.  467. 

Congress  may  provide  for  case  of,  art.  2,  sec.  1,  cl.  6,  p.  467. 
Resolution, 

concurrent  to  be  presented  to  President,  art.  1,  see.  7,  cl.  3,  p. 
75. 
Retrospective  statutes, 

when  and  when  not  invalid,  p.  273. 
Revenue, 

bills  to  originate  in  House,  art.  1,  sec.  7,  cl.  1,  p.  71. 

what  is  revenue  bill,  p.  71. 

preference  not  to  be  given  to  ports,  art.  1,  see.  9,  cl.  6,  p.  234. 

Congress  may  use  means  to  collect  in  its  discretion,  p.  216. 

or  means  to  protect  collectors,  p.  216. 
Revenue  stamp, 

not  to  be  required  on  process  in  state  courts,  p.  83. 

or   on   foreign  bills   of  lading,  p.   233. 
Revolutionary  war, 

cast  powers  of  government  on  people,  p.  677. 

Rhode  Island, 

representatives  in  first  Congress,  art.  1,  sec.  2,  cl.  3,  p.  44. 

Right  of  petition, 

not  to  be  abridged,  Amdt.  art.  1,  p.  619. 
Right  of  redemption, 

legislative  power  over,  p.  422. 
Right  to  bear  arms, 

not  to  be  infringed,  Amdt.  art.  2,  cl.  1,  p.  622. 
Rights  enumerated, 

not  to  deny  or  disparage  other,  retained,  Amdt.  art.  9.  p.  676. 

not   delegated  to  United  States  or  prohibited   to  states  are  re- 
served, Amdt.  art.  10,  p.  677. 


958  Index. 

Eights  of  citizens, 

protection  of,  Amdt.  art.  5,  p.  627. 

state  not  to  abridge,  Amdt.  art.  14,  sec.  1,  p.  696. 

purpose  of  amendment,  pp.  696,  697. 

to  vote,  Amdt.  art.  15,  sec.  1,  p.  738. 

amendment  construed,  p.   738. 

may  be  protected  by  Congress,  Amdt,  art.  15,  sec.  2,  p.  740. 
Eights  of  people, 

not  disparaged  by  enumeration  of  rights  in  constitution,  Amdt. 
art.  9,  p.  676. 
Eights  of  property, 

in  invention,  p.  185. 
Eoads, 

authority  of  Congress  to  establish,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  7,  pp.  175, 
176. 
Eobbery, 

on  high  seas  is  piracy,  p.  190. 

of  mail,  concurrent  power  to  punish  for,  p.  176. 
Eules, 

of  proceedings,  each  House  may  determine,  art.  1,  sec.  5,  cl.  2, 
p.  62. 

and    regulations    respecting    territory    and    property    of    United 
States,  art.  4,  sec.  3,  cl.  2,  p.  596. 

of  common  law,  trial  by  jury,  Amdt.  art.  7,  p.  668. 

re-examination   of  facts  by,  Amdt.   art.   7,   pp.   668,  672. 

rules  of  procedure  in  federal  courts,  Congress  may  prescribe,  pp. 
187,  189. 

state  rules  may  be  adopted,  pp.  498,  507. 

of  evidence,  when  statute  not  ex  post  facto,  p.  256. 

Salaries, 

of  office  may  be  reduced,  p.  290. 

See   Compensation. 
Schools, 

provision  for  separate  valid,  pp.  704,  730. 
Science  and  art, 

Congress  may  promote  progress  of,  art,  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  8,  p.  178. 
Searches  and  seizures, 

security  of  people  against,  Amdt.  art.  4,  p.  624. 

warrants,  what  essential  to,  Amdt,  art.  4,  pp.  624,  625. 
Seat  of  government, 

exclusive  legislation  of  Congress  over,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  el.   17,  p. 
205. 
Secession  and  confederation, 

prohibited  to  states,  pp.  239,  240. 

ordinance  of,  void,  p.  241. 

not  a  reserved  right,  p.  684. 


Index.  959 

Secretary  of  Interior, 

cannot  make  penal  laws,  p.  79. 
Secretary  of  Treasury, 

may  make  customs  regulations,  p.  79. 
Secretary  of  War, 

no  right  to  suspend  privilege  of  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  p.  225. 

cannot  sell  government  property,  p.  210. 

may  be  empowered  to  supervise  government  work,  p.  79. 
Secret  sessions, 

in  discretion,  p.  65. 
Securities, 

punishment  for  counterfeiting,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  6,  p.  173. 

of   government,   Congress   may   exempt   from   taxation,  p.   218. 

of  confederacy  invalid,  p.  243. 
Seizure, 

protection  from,  Amdt.  art.  4,  p.  624. 

warrants,  what  necessary  to  obtain,  p.  625. 
Senate  and  House  of  Representatives, 

components  of  Congress,  art.  1,  see.  1,  p.  38. 
Senate, 

composed  of  two  senators  from  each  state,  art.  1,  sec.  3,  cl.  1, 
p.  49. 

chosen  by  legislatures  for  six  years,  art.  1,  sec.  3,  cl.  1,  p.  49. 

construction  of  clause,  pp.  49,  50. 

vacancies,  how  created,  p.  51. 

executive  cannot  appoint,  when,  p.  52. 

qualifications  for,  art.  1,  sec.  3,  cl.  3,  p.  53. 

division  into  classes,  art.  1,  sec.  3,  cl.  2,  p.  51. 

Vice-President  to  be  President   of,  art.  1,  sec.  3,  cl.  4,  p.  54. 

to  choose  officers  and  president  pro  tempore,  art.  1,  sec.  3,  cl.  5, 
p.  54. 

to  have  sole  power  to  try  impeachments,  art.  1,  sec.  3,  cL  6,  p.  54. 

on  such  trial  to  be  on  oath  or  affirmation,  art.  1,  sec.  3,  cl.  6,  p. 
54. 

chief  justice  to  preside  on  trial  of  President,  art.  1,  see.  3,  cl. 
6,  p.  54. 

concurrence  of  two-thirds  required  for  conviction,  art.  1,  sec.  3, 
cl.  6,  p.  54. 

shall  be  judge  of  returns  and  qualifications  of  its  members,  art. 
1,  sec.  5,  cl.  1,  p.  58. 

majority  to  constitute  a  quorum,  art.  1,  sec.  5,  cl.  1,  p.  58. 

smaller  number  may  adjourn  and  compel  attendance,  art.  1,  sec. 
5,  cl.  1,  p.  58. 

may  determine  rules  of  its  proceedings,  art.  1,  sec.  5,  cl.  2,  p.  62. 

may  punish  or  expel  a  member,  art.  1,  sec.  3,  cl.  2,  p.  62. 

to  keep  journal  of  its  proceedings,  art.  1,  sec.  5,  el.  3,  p.  65. 


960  Index. 

Senate — Continued. 

to  publish  the  same,  except,  art.  1,  sec.  5,  cl.  3,  p.  65. 

restriction  on  power  to  adjourn,  art.  1,  sec.  5,  cl.  4,  p.  65. 

may  propose  amendments  to  revenue  bills,  art.  1,  sec.  7,  cl.  1,  p. 

71. 
shall  advise  and  consent  to  ratifications  of  treaties,  art.  2,  sec.  2, 

cl.  2,  p.  •  481. 
shall  advise  and  consent  to  the  appointment  of  ambassadors,  etc., 

art.  2,  sec.  2,  cl.  2,  p.  481. 
and  judges  of  the  supreme  court  and  other  officers,  art.  2,  sec.  2, 

cl.  2,  p.  481. 
when  may  be  convened  by  President,  art.  2,  sec.  3,  cl.  1,  p.  493. 
no  state  without  its  consent  to  be  deprived  of  its  equal  suffrage 

in,  art.  5,  p.  606. 
Senators, 

to  be  divided  into  three  classes,  art.  1,  sec.  3,  cl.  2,  p.  51. 
seats  of  classes,  when  vacated,  art.  1,  sec.  3,  cl.  2,  p.  51. 
qualifications  as  to  age  and  inhabitancy,  art.  1,  sec.  3,  cl.  3,  p.  53. 
time,  place,  and  manner   of  choosing,  how  fixed,  art.  1,  sec.  4, 

cl.  1,  p.  55. 
Congress  may  alter  except  as  to  places,  art.  1,  sec.  4,  cl.  1,  p.  55. 
to  be  privileged  from  arrest,  except,  art.  1,  sec.  6,  cl.  1,  p.  66. 
compensation  to  be  ascertained  by  law,  art.  1,  sec.  6,  cl.  1,  p.  66. 
shall  not  be  questioned  for  speech  or  debate,  art.  1,  sec.  6,  cl.  1, 

p.   66. 
ineligible  to  offices  created  during  term  of  service,  art.  1,  sec.  6, 

cl.  2,  p.  69. 
who  ineligible  to  office  of,  art.  1,  sec.  6,  cl.  2,  p.  69. 
ineligible  to  office  of  presidential  elector,  art.  2,  sec.  1,  cl.  2,  p.  69. 
shall  be  bound  by  oath  to  support  the  constitution,  art.  6,  cl.  3, 

p.  615. 
certain  persons  disqualified,  Amdt.  art.  14,  sec.  3,  p.  735. 
Congress  may  remove  disability,  Amdt.  art.  14,  sec.  3,  p.  735. 
Service  or  labor, 

delivery  up  of  fugitives  from,  art.  4,  sec.  2,  cl.  3,  p.  590. 
Servitude, 

involuntary,   except   for   crime,   abolished,   Amdt.   art.   13,   sec.   1, 

p.   692. 
rights  of  citizens  not  to  be  abridged  on  account  of  prior  condi- 
tion of,  Amdt.  art.  15,  sec.  1,  p.  738. 
Shipping, 

Congress,  power  to  establish  rules  for,  p.  106. 
state  may  impose  license  tax,  pp.  113,  144. 
Ships  of  war, 

states  shall  not  keep,  art.  1,  sec.  10,  cl.  3,  p.  451. 


Index.  961 

Slave, 

claim  for  loss  or  emancipation  of,  void,  Amdt.  art.  14,  sec.  4,  p. 
736. 
Slave  trade, 

not  piracy  under  law  of  nations,  p.  191. 
Slavery, 

abolished,  Amdt.  art.  13,  sec.  1,  p.  692. 

power  of  Congress  to  enforce  provision,  Amdt.  art.  13,  sec.  1,  p. 
694. 
Soldiers, 

not  to  be  quartered  in  any  house  without  the  consent  of  owner, 

Amdt.  art.  3,  see.  1,  p.  623. 
payment  of  bounties  not  to  be  questioned,  Amdt.  art.  14,  sec.  4. 
p.  736. 
South  Carolina, 

representatives  in  first  Congress,  art.  1,  sec.  2,  cl.  3,  p.  44. 
Sovereignty, 

of  the  state  and  United  States  governments  within  spheres,  p. 
677. 

See  Government;  State;  United  States. 
Speaker, 

House  to  choose  speaker  and  other  officers,  art.  1,  see.  2,  cl.  5, 
p.  48. 
Speech, 

Congress  not  to  abridge  freedom  of,  Amdt.  art.  1,  sec.  1,  p.  619. 
Speedy  trial, 

right  to,  p.  664. 
Standard  of  weights  and  measures, 

Congress  shall  fix,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  5,  pp.  171,  172. 
States, 

what  is  "state,"  p.   239. 

executives  shall  issue  writs  of  election  to  fill  vacancies  in  House, 

art.  1,  sec.  2,  cl.  4,  p.  46. 
cannot  tax  means  and  instruments   of  government,  p.   83. 
cannot  tax  government  securities,  pp.   83,  91. 
may  tax  estates  composed  of  government  securities,  p.  93. 
commerce   among,   to   be   regulated   by    Congress,  art.   1    sec.   8, 

cl.  3,  p.  95. 
cannot  lay  tax  on  freight,  pp.  130,  134. 
cannot  obstruct  navigation,  pp.  96,  97. 
concurrent  power  over  commerce,  p.  101. 
power  when  exclusive  in  Congress,  p.  101. 
no   power  beyond   right   of   self-defense,   p.   117. 
may  regulate  sale  of  dangerous  commodities,  pp.  126,  721. 
may  regulate  or  prohibit  sale  of  liquors,  pp.  127,  440. 
Notes  on  Constitution — 61 


962  Index. 

States — Continued. 

state  authority  as  to  naturalization,  p.  154. 

may  punish  for  uttering  counterfeit  coin,  p.  174. 

or  for  cheating  by  base  coin,  p.  174. 

or  for  keeping  counterfeit  implements,  p.  174. 

power  to  punish  offenses  against  postal  laws,  p.   176. 

power  with  reference  to  patents  and  copyrights,  p.  179. 

power  over  militia,  pp.  202,  204. 

may  punish  for  neglect  to   obey  orders,  p.  202. 

concurrent  power  to  call  out  militia,  p.  202. 

authority  to  officer  and  train  militia,  p.  204. 

authority  over  corporations,  pp.   143,   335,  678,  718. 

no  power  to  tax  passengers,  p.  116. 

police  powers  of  state  supreme,  pp.  117,  437,  438,  698. 

power  over  internal  commerce,  p.  111. 
authorities  over  fisheries,  p.  128. 
license  taxes,  p.  138. 

state   insolvent  laws,   validity   of,  pp.  161,  417. 
when  superseded,  p.     164. 
territorial  limit  of  authority,  p.  166. 
validity  of  insolvent  discharge,  p.  165. 
reserved  power  as  to  militia,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  16,  p.  204. 
authority  over  land  ceded  to  government,  p.  210. 
ports  of,  not  to  have  preference  over  other  state  ports,  art.  1, 

sec.  9,  cl.  6,  p.  234. 
no  right  to  secede,  pp.  240,  684. 
shall  not  enter  into  treaties,  alliance,   or   confederation,   art.  1, 

sec.  10,  cl.  1,  pp.  239,  240. 
shall  not  grant  letters  of  marque  and   reprisal,  art.  1,  sec.   10, 

cl.  1,  p.  239. 
shall  not  coin  money,  art.  1,  sec.  10,  cl.  1,  pp.  239,  249. 
shall  not  emit  bills  of  credit,  art.  1,  sec.  10,  cl.  1,  p.  239. 
"bill    of    credit,"    defined,   p.    249. 
restriction  as  to  making  a  legal  tender,  art.  1,  sec.  10,  cl.  1,  pp. 

239,  249. 
construction,  p.    249. 

shall  not  pass  bills  of  attainder,  art.  1,  sec.  10,  cl.  1,  p.  239. 
bill  of  attainder,  what  is,  pp.  239,  251. 
or  ex  post  facto  law,  art.  1  sec.   10,  cl.  1,  pp.  239,  252. 
"ex  post   facto  law,"  defined,  p.  253. 
what  not,  p.  257. 

may  regulate  elective  franchise,  pp.  252,  738. 
or   law   impairing   obligation   of  contracts,   art.   1,   sec.   10,   cl.   1, 

pp.  239,  263. 
inhibition  to  apply  to  states,  and  not  to  Congress,  p.  263. 
laws  merely  retrospective  not  inhibited,  p.   273. 


Index.  963 

States — Continued. 

inhibition  construed,  p.  263. 

may  contract  with  individuals,  p.  288. 

bound   by   their   contracts,   p.    288. 

shall  not  grant  any  title  of  nobility,  art.  1,  sec.  10,  cl.  1,  p.  239. 

consent  of  state  to  be  sued  not  a  contract,  p.  306. 

not  to  lay  imposts  or  duties  without  consent  of  Congress,  art.  1, 

sec.  10,  cl.  2,  p.  444. 
"imposts"  and   "duties"   denned,   p.  447. 
inspection  taxes,  power  to  levy,  p.  449. 
net  proceeds  for  use  of  United  States  treasury,  art.  1,  sec.  10, 

cl.    2,    pp.    444,    449. 
state  laws  subject  to  revision  of  Congress,  art.  1,  sec.  10,  cl.  2, 

p.  444. 
not  to  lay  duties  on  tonnage,  art.  1,  sec.  10,  cl.  3,  p.  451. 
tonnage  duties,  what  are,  pp.  451-454. 
not  to  keep  troops  or  war-ships  in  time  of  peace,  art.  1,  sec.  10, 

cl.    3,    p.    451. 
not  to  enter  into  agreement  or  compact  with  other  state,  art.  1, 

sec.  10,  cl.  3,  p.  451. 
agreements  or  compacts,  what  are,  p.  456. 
not  to  engage  in  war  unless  actually  invaded,  art.  1,  sec.  10,  cl 

3,  pp.  451,  458. 
jurisdiction  of  state  courts  coextensive  with  its  territory,  p.  510. 
removal  of  causes  from,  p.  513. 
faith  and  credit  given  to  state  official  acts,  etc.,  art.  4,  sec.  1,  p 

561. 
effect  of  judgments  of  state  courts,  p.  564. 
privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens  secured,  art.  4,  sec.  2,  cl.  1, 

p.  569. 
citizens,  who  are,  p.  569. 
privileges  and  immunities,  p.  572. 
state  rights  as  to  citizens,  p.  575. 

rights  on  admission  of  new  state,  art.  4,  sec.  3,  cl.  1,  pp.  593,  595. 
territorial  property,  claim  to  not  prejudiced,  art.  4,  sec.  3,  cl.  2, 

p.  596. 
republican  form  of  government  guaranteed  to,  art.  4,  sec.  4,  cl. 

1,  p.   603. 
entitled  to  protection  from  invasion,  art.  4,  sec.  4,  cl.  1,  p.  603. 
right  to  maintain  militia,  Amdt.  art.  2,  p.  622. 
powers  not  delegated  are  reserved,  Amdt.  art.  10,  p.  677. 
powers  concurrent,  when,  p.  680. 
state  rights  construed,  p.  677. 
sovereignty,  p.  677. 
secession  not  a  reserved  right,  p.  684. 
what  powers  are  reserved,  p.  681. 


964  Index. 

States — Continued. 

personal  rights  protected,  Amdt.  art.  5,  p.  627. 

states  not  to  abridge  privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens,  Amdt. 
art.  14,  sec.  1,  pp.  696,  702. 

purpose    of    amendment,    pp.    696,    697. 

cannot  deny  or  abridge  the  right  of  citizens  to  vote,  Amdt.  art. 
15,  sec.  1,  p.  738. 

cannot  without  its  consent  be  deprived  of  its  equal  suffrage  in 
Senate,  art.  5,  p.  606. 

three-fourths  of  states  may  ratify  amendments,  art.  5,  p.  606. 
State  bonds, 

may  be  taxed,  p.  277. 
State  debts, 

cannot  be  repudiated,  p.  303. 

provision  that  evidences  of  are  receivable  in  payment  of  taxes  is 
contract,  p.   305. 
State  officers, 

oath  to  be  taken  by,  art.  6,  cl.  3,  p.  615. 
State  records, 

manner  of  authentication  of,  art.  4,  sec.  1,  pp.  561,  568. 

effect   of  judgment  of  state  courts,  p.  564. 

power    of   Congress,   p.    567. 
State  rights, 

acts  and  official  record  to  have  full  faith  and  credit,  art.  4,  sec. 
1,  p.   561. 

Congress   to   prescribe   manner    of     authentication  and   effect  of, 
art.  4,  sec.  1,  pp.  '561,  568. 

privileges  and  immunities  of  state  citizens,  art.  4,  sec.  2,  p.  569. 

republican  form  of  government  guaranteed,  art.  4,  sec.  4,  p.  603. 

right  to  protection  by  general  government,  art.  4,  see.  4,  p.  603. 

Congress  to  decide  form  of  government,  p.  604. 

powers  not  delegated  nor  prohibited,  are  reserved  to  the  states. 
Amdt.   art.    10,    sec.   1,   p.    677. 

secession  not  a  reserved  right,  p.  684. 
Statement, 

of  receipts  and  expenditures  to  be  published,  art.  1,  sec.  9,  cl.  7, 
p.  236. 
Statute  of  limitations, 

Congress  may  suspend   during   rebellion,  pp.   196,   216 

validity   of,  as   to   obligation   of   contracts,  p.  406. 
Stockholders, 

state  may  control  liability  of,  p.  345. 
Succession  tax, 

Congress  may  impose,  pp.  87,  232. 


Index.  *)65 

Suffrage, 

right  not  conferred  by  Fifteenth  Amendment,  p.  738. 

derived  from  states,  p.  738. 

mere  citizenship  does  not  confer,  p.  738. 
Sunday  laws, 

not  abridgment  of  religious  liberty,  p.  620. 

states  may  pass,  pp.  439,  721. 
Supreme  court, 

judicial  power  vested  in,  art.  3,  sec.  1,  p.  496. 

jurisdiction  of,  pp.  542,  546. 

original  jurisdiction,  p.   542. 

appellate  jurisdiction,  p.  546. 

to  what  cases  to  apply,  art.  3,  sec.  2,  cl.  2,  p.  542. 

jurisdiction  over,  what  subjects,  pp.  542,  546. 

as  to  persons,  p.  543. 

See  Judicial  Power. 
Supreme   law, 

constitution  laws,  and  treaties  to  be,  art.  6,  cl.  2,  p.  609. 

judges  in  every  state  bouud  by,  art.  6,  cl.  2,  p.  609. 

constitution  as,  p.  609. 

treaty  as,  p.  612. 
Suppression  of   insurrection, 

Congress  to  provide  for,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  15,  p.  201. 

debts  incurred  for,  not  to  be  questioned,  Amdt.  art.  14,  sec.  4, 
p.  736. 

debts  in  aid  of  insurrection,  void,  p.  735. 
Suspension, 

of  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  effect  of,  p.  223. 

Taxation, 

bills  for,  to  originate  in  House,  p.  71. 
power  of  Congress,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  1,  pp.  76,  80. 
"taxation"  defined,  p.  80. 

power  concurrent  in  national  and  state  government,  p.  81. 
state    power   of,  pp.    81,   276. 
coextensive  with  state  territory,  p.  684. 
governmental  agencies  not  taxable,  p.  83. 
succession  tax  not  direct  tax,  pp.  87,  232. 
exemption  of  securities  from,  pp.  92,  217. 
state  taxation  as  burden  on  commerce,  p.  130. 
as  impairing  contracts,  p.   276. 
state  licenses,  effect  of,  on,  p.  296. 
state  may  waive  right  of,  pp.  299,  357. 
state  may  exempt  from,  pp.  299,  357. 

state   prohibited   from   laying   imposts    or   duties,   except,   art.    1, 
sec.  10,  cl.  2,    p.  444. 


966'  Index, 

Taxation — Continued. 

state  not  to  lay  tonnage  duty  on  vessels,  art.  1,  sec.  10,  cl.  3,  p. 
451. 

tonnage  duty,  what  is,  p.  451. 
Taxes, 

how  apportioned  among  the  states,  art.  1,  sec.  2,  cl.  3,  p.  44. 

on   passenger,   when   invalid,   p.   116. 

"tax"   and  "toll"   distinguished,  p.   80. 

Congress  shall  have  power  to  levy  and  collect,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cL 
1,  p.  76. 

to  be  uniform  throughout  the  United  States,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  1^ 
p.  76. 

direct  taxes,  when  and  how  levied,  art.  1,  sec.  9,  cl.  4,  p.  231. 

capitation  or  direct,  to  be  in  proportion  to  census,  art.  1,  sec.  9, 
cl.   4,  p.  231. 

"capitation  tax"  defined,  p.  231. 

direct  tax,  what  is,  p.  231. 

on  exports  from  state  prohibited,  art.  1,  sec.  9,  cl.  5,  p.  233. 

exception  as  to  insurrectionary  states,  p.  233. 
Telegraph  companies, 

state  may  tax,  pp.  135,  136. 

amenable    to    police    power,    p.    122. 

business  of  is  commerce,  p.  135. 

Congress  may  authorize  operation  of,  p.  177. 

taxation  by  state  when  proper,  pp.  135,  136. 
Telephone  companies, 

same  rules  applicable  as  to  telegraph  companies,  p.  123. 

Tender, 

restriction  on  power  of  state,  art.  1,  sec.  10,  cl.  1,  pp.  239,  249. 

incidental   power   of   United    States   government,   p.    90. 
Tenure  of  office, 

of  United  States  judges,  art.  3,  sec.  1,  cl.  1,  pp.  496,  510. 

Congress  cannot  limit,  p.  496. 
Term  of  office, 

of  President  and  Vice-President,  art.  2,  sec.  1,  cl.  1,  p.  459. 

of   representatives,   art.   1,  sec.   2,   cl.   2,   p.   39. 

of  senators,   art.   1,   sec.   3,  cl.   1,  p.   49. 

of  United  States  judges,  art.  3,  sec.  1,  cl.  1,  p.  496. 
Territorial  courts, 

Congress   may   define   jurisdiction    of,   p.    508. 

not  "inferior  courts,"  p.  187. 

nor  United  States  courts,  p.  508. 

source  of  power  to  establish,  p.  187. 
Territorial  government, 

powers  of  Congress,  p.  600. 


Index.  967 

Territory, 

not  entitled  to  representative  till  admitted,  p.  40. 

acquired  by  conquest,  authority  of  Executive   over,  p.  472. 

cession  of  territory  does  not  make  it  part  of  United  States,  pp. 

472,  599. 
Congress   to   dispose    of   and  to  make   rules   to   regulate,  art.  4, 

sec.  3,  cl.  2,  p.  596. 
Construction  of  section,  p.  596. 
title  to  soil  under  tide  waters,  p.  129. 
Test, 

religious,  not  required  as  qualification  for  office,  art.  6,  el.  3,  p. 
615. 

Test  oath, 

constitutional  provision  for,  a  bill  of   attainder,  pp.  226,  251. 

Testimony, 

necessary   to    conviction    for    treason,    art.    3,   sec.    3,   cl.    1,   pp. 
555,  558. 
Time, 

fraction  of  a  day,  when  noted,  p.  73. 
Times,  places  and  manner, 

of  elections  to  Congress,  art.  1,  see.  4,  cl.  1,  p.  55. 

Congress  may  alter  regulations,  except,  art.  1,  sec.  4,  cl.  1,  p.  55. 
Title  of  nobility, 

United  States  shall  not  grant,  art.  1,  sec.  9,  cl.  8,  p.  238. 

no  state  shall  grant,  art.   1,  sec.  10,  cl.   1,  p.  239. 

United    States    official    not    to    accept,   from    king,    etc.,    art.    1, 
see.  9,  cl.  8,  p.  238. 
Toll, 

and  tax  distinguished,  p.  80. 

mail  contractor  must  pay,  p.  177. 

Tolls  and  freights, 

authority  of  legislature,  pp.  114,  115,  718. 

Tonnage, 

restriction  on  state  as  to  duty  of,  art.  1,  sec.  10,  cl.  3,  p.  451. 

definition  of,  p.  451. 

compensatory   fees   not   tonnage    taxes,   p.   454. 

Trademarks, 

copyrights  not   to   apply  to,  p.   178. 
Tranquility, 

purpose  of  constitution  to  insure,  preamble,  p.  35. 
Transfer, 

of  causes,  power  of  Congress,  p.  513. 

power  of  Congress  to  provide  for,  of  records,  p.  594. 
Transportation, 

an  element  of  commerce,  p.  95. 


968  Index. 

Transportation — Continued. 

state  may  prescribe  regulations  for  safety,  p.  121. 
power  of  state  over  chartered  companies,  pp.  132,  133. 
Treason, 

in  what  consists,  art.  3,  sec.  3,  cl.  1,  p.  555. 

elements  of,  p.  555. 

testimony  necessary  to  convict  of,  art.  3,  sec.  3,  cl.  1,  pp.  555, 

558, 
definition  of  offense,  p.  555. 

Congress  to  declare  punishment  for,  art.  3,  sec.  3,  cl.  2,  p.  559. 
power  exclusive  in  Congress,  p.  559. 
attainder   of,   not   to   work   corruption   of  blood,   art.   3,   sec.    3, 

cl.  2,  p.  559. 
shall    not    work    forfeiture,    except    d\iring    life,    art.    3,    sec.    3, 

cl.  2,  p.  559. 
removal  from    office    on   conviction   of,   art.   2,   sec.   4,   cl.    1,   p. 

495. 
privilege   from   arrest  not  to   extend   to  cases   of,   art.   1,  sec.   6, 

cl.  1,  p.  66. 
secession  was  armed  treason,  p.  242. 
Treasury, 

money  drawn  from,  only  in   consequence  of  appropriation,   art. 

1,  sec.  9,  cl.  7,  p.  236. 

accounts   of   receipts  and  expenditures   to   be  published,  art.   1, 
sec.  9,  cl.  7,  p.  236. 
Treasury  notes, 

Congress   may  issue,   pp.   89,   90. 

may  make  legal  tender,  pp.   90,  91. 

state  cannot  tax,  p.  91. 
Treaties, 

President,  with   concurrence   of  Senate,  may  make,   art.   2,  sec. 

2,  cl.  2,  p.  481. 
"treaty"  defined,  p.  481. 
extent  of  power  to  make,  p.  482. 

judicial  power  to  extend  to  eases  under,  art.  3,  sec.  2,  cl.  1,  p.  517. 
to  be  supreme  law,  binding  on  all  judges,  art.  6,  cl.  2,  p.  612. 
state  prohibited  from  making,  art.  1,  sec.  10,  cl.  1,  p.  239. 
Trial, 

and  judgment  after  conviction,  on  impeachment,  art.  1,  sec.  3, 

cl.  7,  p.  54. 
formal  trial  not  necessary  to  due  process  of  law,  p.  643. 
waiver  of  in  civil  cases,  p.  673. 

law  regulating  mode  of,  not  ex  post  facto,  p.  259. 
Trial  by  jury, 

of  all  crimes  except  cases  of  impeachment,  art.  3,  sec.  2,  cl.  3, 

p.  551. 


Index.  969 

Trial  by  Jury— Continued. 

provision,  to  what  applies,  p.  551. 

to  be  held  in  state  where  crime  was  committed,  art.  3,  sec.  2, 

el.  3,  p.  551. 
when  not  committed  within  a  state,  to  be  where   Congress  di- 
rects, art.  3,  sec.  2,  cl.  3,  p.  551. 
of  accused  to  be  speedy  and  public,  Amdt.  art.  6,  pp.  663,  665. 
provision  not  extended  to  territory  upon  cession,  p.  667. 
in  civil  suits  at  common  law,  Amdt.   art.  7,  p.  668. 
right,  when  not  to  attnch,  p.  671. 
re-examination  of  causes,  p.  672. 

trial  by  jury  not  essential  to  due  process  of  law,  p.  643. 
Tribunals, 

inferior  to   supreme  court,   Congress  may  establish,  art.  1,  sec. 

8,  cl.  9,  p.  187. 
Troops, 

state  shall  not  keep  in  time  of  peace,  art.  1,  sec.  10,  cl.  3,  pp. 

451,  458. 
Turnpikes, 

state  may  charter,  pp.  112,  113,  362. 
grant   of  franchise   construed,   p.   362. 
power  of  legislature  over  franchise,  pp.  362,  377. 
Two-thirds, 

of  Senate  to  concur  in  conviction  on  impeachment,  art.  1,  sec. 

3,  cl.  6,  p.  54. 
of  each  House  may  expel  a  member,  art.  1,  sec.  5,  cl.  2,  p.  62. 
may  pass  a  bill  over  President's  veto,  art.  1,  sec.  7,  cl.  2,  p.  72. 
concurrence  required  to  make  treaty,  art.  2,  sec.  2,  cl.  2,  p.  481. 
of  states,  for  call  of  convention  to  propose  amendments,  art.  5, 

p.   606. 
of  both  Houses  may  propose  amendments,  art.  5,  p.  606. 
of  states  represented,  required  for  choice  of  President  by  House, 

Amdt.  art.   12,  pp.   690,  631. 
of  senators,  required  for  election  of  Vice-President,  Amdt.  art. 

12,  p.  691. 
of  Congress,  may  remove  disability  to  office,  Amdt.  art.  14,  sec. 

3,  p.  735. 

"Uniform," 

defined,  p.  159. 
Uniformity, 

required   in  bankrupt  law,  p.   159. 
in  imposition  of  taxes,  p.  88. 
Union, 

purpose  of  constitution  to  establish  more  perfect,  preamble,  p.  36. 
perpetual  and  indissoluble,  p.  240. 
states  were  never  out  of,  p.  240. 


970  Index. 

Union — Continued. 

state  of,  to  be  given  to  Congress  by  President,  art.  2,  sec.  3, 

p.  493. 
new  states  may  be  admitted  into,  art.  4,  see.  3,  el.  1,  p.  593. 
restriction  as  to  formation  of  new  states,  art.  4,  sec.  3,  cl.  1,  pp. 

593,  594. 

United  States, 

"people  of,"  defined,  p.  35. 

powers    of    government    of,    pp.    36,    680. 

who  are  citizens  of,  Amdt.  art.  14,  sec.  1,  p.  698. 
See    Government. 
United  States  bonds, 

exemption  from  state  taxation,  p.  91. 

United  States  courts, 

power  of  Congress  to  institute,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  9,  p.  187. 

bound  by  rule  of  property  of  state  supreme  court,  p.  498. 

jurisdiction  of,  art.   3,  sec.  2,  cl.   1,  p.  517. 

extent  of  jurisdiction,  pp.  504,  520. 

territorial  courts  not,  p.  508. 

jurisdiction  as  to  person,  p.  520. 

admiralty  and  maritime,  p.  33. 

powers  over  maritime  contracts,  pp.  533,  537. 
United  States  marshal, 

cannot  be  commercial  agent  of  foreign  nation,  p.  238. 
Unreasonable  searches  and  seizures, 

prohibited,  Amdt.  art.  4,  p.  624. 
Unusual  punishments, 

not  to  be  inflicted,  Amdt.  art.  8,  p.  675. 
Useful  arts, 

Congress  to  promote  progress  of,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  8,  p.  178. 
Usury  laws, 

validity  of,  pp.  393,  394. 

Vacancy, 

in  representation,  Executive  to  issue  writs  of  election  to  fill,  art. 

1,  sec.  2,  cl.  4,  p.  46. 
how  created,  p.  46. 

in  Senate,  how  filled,  art.  1,  sec.  3,  cl.  2,  p.  51. 

during  recess  of  Senate  to  be  filled  by  commission,  art.  2,  sec. 

2,  cl.  3,  p.  492. 

power  of  President  to  fill,  p.  492. 
by  Executive  appointed,  effect  of,  p.  52. 
created  by  acceptance  of  incompatible  office,  p.  69. 
Validity  of  public  debt, 

not  to  be  questioned,  Amdt.  art.  14,  sec.  4,  p.  736. 


Index.  971 

Vessels, 

from  port  of  one  state,  not  to  be  obliged  to  pay  duties  in  an- 
other, art.  1,  sec.  9,  cl.  6,  p.  234. 

power  of  Congress  to  make  regulations  for,  pp.  106,  107. 

state  may  regulate  positions  in  harbors,  etc.,  p.  118. 

Congress  may  provide  punishment  for  conspiracy  to  burn,  p.  191. 

of  war,  not  subject  to  local  jurisdiction,  p.  200. 

of  war,  Congress  may  build,  p.  200. 

power  of  states  to  tax,  pp.   131,  452. 

state  may  make  inspection    laws,   p.   449. 

privileges  and  immunities   of,  p.   234. 

not  obliged  to  enter  or  clear  in  interstate  commerce,  p.  234. 
Vested  rights, 

term  defined,  p.  264. 

constitution    does   not    deprive    Congress    of   power    to   infringe, 
p.  161. 

cannot  be  devested  by  state  legislation,  pp.  264,  265. 

under  land  grants,  p.  292. 

under   grants  from   state  generally,  p.   291. 
Veto, 

of  bill  by  President,  proceedings  of  Congress  on,  art.  1,  sec.  7, 
cl.  2,  p.  72. 

Vice-President, 

to   be  president  of  Senate,  art.  1,  see.  3,  cl.  4,  p.  54. 

to  have  no  vote  except  on  equal  division,  art.  1,  sec.  3,  cl.  4,  p.  54. 

Senate  may  choose  president  pro  tempore,  art.  1,  sec.  3,  cl.  5,  p. 

54. 
to  be  chosen  for  four  years,  art.  2,  sec.  1,  cl.  1,  p.  459. 
number  of  electors,  and  manner  of  appointing,  art.  2,  sec.  1,  cl. 

2,  p.  464. 
duties  of  President,  when  to  devolve  on,  art.  2,  sec.  1,  cl.  6,  p. 

467. 
Congress    may   provide    by   law   for   appointment    of,   in    certain 

cases,  art.  2,  sec.  1,  cl.  6,  p.  467. 
removal  from  office  by  impeachment,  art.  2,  sec.  4,  p.  495. 
manner  of  choosing  by  electors,  Amdt.  art.  12,  pp.  690,  691. 
to  be  named  by  electors  in  distinct  ballots,  Amdt.   art.  12,  pp. 

690,  691. 
distinct   lists   to   be   signed,   certified,   and   sent   to   president   of 

Senate,  Amdt.  art.  12,  pp.  690,  691. 
count   of  votes  by  president  of  Senate,  Amdt.   art.  12,  pp.  690, 

691. 
person   having   greatest  number   of   votes   to   be,   Amdt.   art.   12, 

pp.  690,  691. 
if  no  person  have  majority,  Senate  to  choose,  Amdt.  art.  12,  pp. 

690,  691. 


972  Index. 

Vice-President — Continued. 

quorum  for  such  purpose  to  be  two-thirds,  Amdt.  art.  12,  pp.  690, 

691. 
majority  of  whole  number  necessary  to  a  choice,  Amdt.  art.  12, 

pp.  690,  691. 
when  to  act  as  President,  Amdt.  art.  12,  p.  691. 
eligibility  to  office  of,  Amdt.  art.  12,  p.  691. 
Violation  of  obligation, 

of   contract,  prohibition,   pp.   239,   263. 

See   Obligation   of   Contract. 
Virginia, 

representation  in  first  Congress,  art.  1,  sec.  2,  el.  3,  p.  45. 
Volunteers, 

state  may  give  bounty  to,  p.  198. 
Vote, 

each  senator  shall  have  one,  art.  1,  sec.  3,  cl.  1,  p.  49. 
Vice-President  not  to  have,  except  on  equal  division,  art.  1,  sec. 

3,  cl.  4,  p.  49. 
requiring  concurrence  of  two  Houses  to  be  presented  to  Presi- 
dent, art.  1,  sec.  7,  cl.  3,  p.  75. 
each  House  may  expel  a  member  by  two-thirds,  art.  1,  sec.  5,  cl. 

2,  p.  62. 
bill  vetoed  may  be  passed  by  a  two-thirds,  art.  1,  sec.  7,  cl.  2, 

p.  72. 
of   two-thirds   required   for   conviction    on   impeachment,   art.   1, 

sec.  3,  cl.  6,  p.  54. 
two-thirds  of  Congress  necessary  to  propose  amendments,  art.  5, 

p.  606. 
consent   of  two-thirds  Senate  necessary  to  make   treaty,  art.  2, 

sec.  2,  cl.  2,  p.  481. 
two-thirds  necessary  to  remove   disability  for  office,  Amdt.  art. 

14,   sec.   3,  p.   735. 
effect  of  denying  right  to,  on  apportionment  or  representation, 

Amdt.  art.  14,  see.  2,  p.  734. 
for    President    and   Vice-President,    how    taken,    Amdt.    art.    12, 

pp.  690,  691. 
right  of  citizens,  cannot  be  abridged,  Amdt.  art.  15,  sec.  1,  p. 

738. 
right  to,  not  to  be  abridged  by  reason  of  race,  color,  etc.,  Amdt. 

art.  15,  sec.  1,  p.  738. 
right  to  comes  from  states,  p.  738. 
Waiver, 

of  privilege  as  witness,  p.  641. 
of   jury   trial,   p.   673. 


Index.  973 

War, 

defined,  p.  193. 

power  of  Congress  to  declare,  art.  1,  see.  8,  cl.  11,  p.  194. 

power  exclusive,  p.  194. 

powers   incidental   to   war  power,   p.   216. 

power  to  make  rules  and  articles  of,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  14,  p.  200. 

no  state  without  consent  of  Congress,  to  engage  in,  art.  1,  sec.  10, 
el.  3,  pp.  451,  458. 

treason  consists  in  levying,  art.  3,  sec.  3,  cl.  1,  p.  555. 

quartering  soldiers  in  time  of,  to  be  regulated  by  Congress,  Amdt. 
art.  3,  p.  623. 
Warehouses, 

state  may  regulate  storage,  etc.,  p.  113. 
Warrants, 

to  issue  only  on  probable  cause,  Amdt.  art.  4,  p.  624. 

on  oath  or  affirmation,  Amdt.  art.  4,  pp.  624,  625. 
Washington, 

jurisdiction  of  Congress  over,  p.  205. 

See   Seat    of   Government;   District   of   Columbia. 
Weights  and  Measures, 

Congress  to  fix  standard  of,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  5,  p.  171. 

power  exclusive,  when  exercised,  p.  172. 
Welfare, 

purpose  of  Congress  to  secure,  preamble,  p.  35. 

Congress  shall  have  power  to  provide  for,  art.  1,  sec.  8,  cl.  1.  p.  76. 
Witnesses, 

no  person  to  be  compelled  to  testify  against  himself,  Amdt.  art. 
5,  pp.  627,  639. 

amendment  construed,  p.  627. 

waiver    of    privilege,    p.    641. 

accused  to  be  confronted  by,  Amdt.  art.  6,  pp.  663,  666. 

accused  to  have  compulsory  process  for,  Amdt.  art.  6,  pp.  663,  666. 

testimony  necessary  for  conviction  for  treason,  art.  3,  sec.  3,  cl.  1, 
pp.   555,   558. 
Writs, 

of  election  to  fill  vacancies  in  representation,  art.  1,  sec.  2,  cl. 
4,    p.    46. 
Written    opinion, 

of  heads   of  departments,  President  may  require,  art.  2,  sec.  2, 
cl.  1,  p.  469. 

Yeas  and  nays, 

at  desire  of  one-fifth,  to  be  entered  on  .-journals,  art.  1,  sec.  5, 

cl.    3,    p.    65. 
passage  over  veto  to  be  determined  by,  art.  1,  sec.  7,  cl.  2,  p.  72. 


